^^Rv  OF  pmcerS^ 


AN    EXPOSITION 


OP  THE 


EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  TO  THE 
ROMANS. 


BY 

WILLIAM  G.  WILLIAMS,  LL.  D., 

LATE  PROFESSOR  OP  GREEK  IN  THE  OHIO  WE8LEYAX   UNIVERSITY. 


CINCINNATI:  JENNINGS  AND  PYE. 
NEW  YORK:    EATON  AND    MAINS. 


OOPTRIGHT,  1902,  BY 
JXNNIN6S  AND  FTE. 


PREFACE. 


Browning,  in  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  yEschylus's 
Agamemnon,  says:  "  If  I  wished  to  acquaint  myself,  by  the  aid  of 
a  translator,  with  a  work  of  the  immense  fame  of  this  tragedy,  I 
should  require  him  to  be  literal  at  every  cost,  save  that  of  absolute 
violence  to  our  language.  And  I  would  be  tolerant,  for  once,  of 
even  a  clumsy  attempt  to  furnish  me  with  the  very  turn  of  each 
phrase,  in  as  Greek  a  fashion  as  English  will  bear." 

Such  is  the  requirement  that  every  student  of  Paul's  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  would  gladly  exact  for  himself  from  the  translator. 
In  the  translation  of  a  work  of  such  "  immense  fame,"  and  of  such 
immense  moment,  intrinsically,  to  us,  we  are  right  in  demanding, 
not  a  free  literary  modernized  translation,  but  a  faithful  repro- 
duction of  the  exact  structure,  and  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
original,  even  at  the  cost,  if  need  be,  of  literary  style,  and  of  En- 
glish idiom.  But,  happily,  a  version  of  this  epistle,  in  order  to  be 
literal  and  exact,  need  not  be  un-English,  in  either  style  or  idiom. 
We  can  express,  literally  and  exactly,  the  words,  the  articles,  the 
particles,  the  tenses  of  the  verbs,  the  grammatical  construction  of 
the  sentences,  and  the  logical  sequence  of  the  thoughts,  in  clear, 
strong,  idiomatic  English.  We  can  reproduce  just  the  thought, 
and  just  the  color  of  the  thought,  in  appropriate  English  utterance. 

The  history  of  Bible  translation  for  five  hundred  years  into 
English,  will  show  how  far  this  aim  has  been  kept  in  thought,  and 
how  far  this  end  has  been  attained. 

The  Bible  was  first  translated  (from  the  Latin  Vulgate)  into 
English,  in  1380,  by  Wyclif .  "  His  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  still 
more  his  numerous  English  sermons  and  tracts,  establish  his  now 
undisputed  position  as  the  founder  of  English  prose  writing." 
— (Eucycl.  Brit.)  Yet  this  translation,  which  had  only  a  limited 
circulation,  did  not  establish  the  standard  of  Biblical  style  for  later 

scholars. 

3 


4  PREFACE. 

The  first  Enplish  translation  from  tlic  Greek  was  made  hy 
Tyndale,  in  loLT).  Tliis  translation,  tlie  work  of  a  single  competent 
scholar,  fixed  the  Biblical  style  for  all  its  successors;  and  was  the 
basis  and  the  model  for  many  revisions,  notably  the  "Great 
Bible"  of  1539;  the  "Geneva  Bible"  of  1560;  and  the  "Bishops' 
Bible  "  of  1568,  which  were  all  the  work  of  collaboration.  But 
none  of  them  made  any  claim  to  be  literal  and  exact.  They  were 
often  inaccurate,  they  were  not  always  comprehensible  ;  and  they 
were  not  satisfactory  to  the  common  readers,  or  to  the  scholars. 
There  was  still  a  call  for  a  translation  more  authoritative,  more 
accurate,  more  literal,  which  would  displace  the  former  trans- 
lations. 

The  formal  movement  for  such  a  translation  began,  with  the 
concurrence  both  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Dissenters,  in  1604. 
By  the  command  of  King  James  First,  of  England,  a  committee  of 
fifteen  leading  scholars,  taken  about  equally  from  the  Higli 
Church  party,  and  from  the  Puritans,  prepared  the  New  Testament 
part  of  the  translation.  This  translation,  whose])reparation  occu- 
pied three  years,  was  published  in  1611;  and  bears  the  name  of 
"  King  James's,"  or  "  The  Authorized." 

It  was  a  great  improvement  upon  the  former  translations, 
though  it  did  not  at  once  displace  tliem.  It  kept  the  best  features 
of  the  old  versions,  and  added  many  of  its  own.  It  wisely  pre- 
served the  peculiarities  of  Tyndale's  Biblical  style,  including  es- 
pecially the  old  (and  partly  antiquated)  grammatical  character- 
istics, the  personal  inflections  of  the  verb,  the  distinction  between 
the  singular  and  the  plural  of  the  personal  j)ronouns,  thou  and  ye  ; 
and  the  distinction  between  the  nominative  i/e  and  the  objective 
//o«.  The  style  of  the  Authorized  is  simple,  clear,  and  graceful; 
and  the  turns  of  expression  are  idiomatic  and  liappy.  There  is 
also  in  this  translation  a  sobriety  and  dignity  found  in  few  other 
books  in  the  language.  The  English  Bible,  in  its  vocabulary,  its 
grammar,  its  style,  its  cathedral  tone,  has  a  unique  place  in  our 
literature,  and  ranks  (with  some  grave  deductions),  as  the  great 
cla.ssic  of  the  English-speaking  people,  and  the  highest  standard 
of  the  English  language.  But  the  Authorized  translation,  like  its 
predecessors,  makes  no  claim  to  be  literal  and  exact.  Indeed,  the 
translators  rather  pride  themselves  on  their  variety  of  expression : 
They  say  (in  their  preface),  "We  have  not  tied  ourselves  to  a 
uniformity  of  phrasing.  Nicety  in  woi*ds  is  the  next  step  to 
trifling." 


PREFACE.  5 

But  the  Authorized,  with  all  its  excellencies  of  style,  was  not 
an  ideal  translation.  In  the  opinion  of  competent  judges  it  often 
fails  to  express  precisely  what  the  Greek  precisely  expresses ;  it 
fails  systematically  to  express  the  force  of  the  Greek  tenses  (and 
very  frequently  of  the  modes),  and  of  the  Greek  article,  and  of  the 
Greek  particles ;  very  often  the  reader  does  not  know  what  it 
means,  and  sometimes  it  expresses  no  meaning  at  all.  In  fact, 
this  translation  did  not  secure  general  acceptance,  nor  reach  this 
high  estimation,  until  long  after  its  publication;  nor  until,  by 
official  recognition  as  "  the  Authorized,"  rather  than  by  its  merits 
alone,  it  had  occupied  the  field  against  all  rivals.  But  after  three 
hundred  years  of  "  authorization,"  it  has  now  become  the  conven- 
tional style  to  speak  of  this  translation  in  extravagant  terms,  as 
"  the  best  translation  ever  made."  We  are  often  amused  and 
amazed  at  the  assumption  with  w^hich  men  who  can  not  read  a 
word  of  Hebrew  or  of  Greek,  and  who  have  therefore  not  earned 
a  right  to  speak  on  this  point,  pronounce  upon  the  incomparable 
excellence  of  the  Authorized  translation.  It  is  called  "  the  Bible 
of  our  fathers,  venerable,  sacred."  Many,  indeed,  think  it  sacri- 
legious to  touch  this  translation  wath  irreverent  hands,  to  expose 
its  failures  and  its  faults,  to  criticise  it,  or  to  propose  to  alter  it; 
or  even  to  eliminate  the  acknowledged  blunders  that  have  crept 
into  it.*  Yet  from  the  first,  the  Authorized  translation  has  been 
the  subject  of  much  criticism,  both  friendly  and  unfriendly ;  and 
many  attempts,  by  individual  or  associated  effort,  have  been  made 
to  improve  it,  if  not  to  supersede  it.  Our  shelves  are  full  of  such 
books,  many  of  which  are  better  than  the  Authorized.  But  the 
sanction  of  the  crown,  and  the  approbation  of  the  Church,  gave 
it  a  factitious  reputation  which  it  yet  holds,  and  will  continue  to 
hold,  though  ever  less  securely,  for  an  indefinite  time  to  come. 

The  Authorized,  owing  to  these  adventitious  circumstances, 
has  had  a  wonderful  history,  and  a  wonderful  influence,  religious 
and  literary,  in  the  great  nations  that  speak  the  English  language. 
But  this  book  to  which  we  owe  so  much,  but  which  is  not  a  good 
translation  of  the  Greek,  has  played  its  part ;  and  the  time  has 
come,  it  came  long  ago,  when  it  should  retire  and  leave  the  stage 


•'This  feeling  In  regard  to  ourdefective  translation  of  the  Blbleamounts 
to  a  superstition.  Nearly  fifty  years  ago,  the  American  Bible  Society 
deliberately  voted  not  to  cancel  or  correct  more  than  twenty-four  thousand 
variations  (most  of  them,  of  course,  very  insignificant)  that  their  own 
Committee  liad  found  in  the  text  of  the  standard  editions. 


6  PREFACE. 

to  a  better  player.  Far  better  would  it  be  for  the  English  readers 
of  the  Bible,  if  tlie  Authorized  translation  should  now,  like 
Tyndale's,  and  the  Bishops',  be  relegated  from  our  tables  to  our 
book-shelves. 

There  is  a  better  book,  not  as  good  as  it  ought  to  be,  to  take 
the  place  of  the  Authorized,  provisionally. 

The  dissatisfaction  with  tlie  Authorized  long  ago  showed  that 
a  change  must  eventually  come.  At  length,  in  1870,  the  Canter- 
bury Convocation  ventured  upon  the  task.  The  Convocation 
could  have  given  the  Englisli  world  a  translation  abreast  of  the 
Greek  scholarship,  and  of  the  English  scholarship  of  the  times, 
and  perhaps  a  final  translation.  But  unfortunately,  with  short- 
sighted policy,  they  voted  "  that  they  did  not  contemj)late  a  new 
translation,"  but  only  a  revision  of  the  old  translation.  It  would 
almost  seem  that  the  Canterbury  divines  really  preferred  the  old 
leaven  in  the  new  batch;  or,  at  least,  from  fear  of  offense  to  the 
conservatives,  they  decided  upon  this  half-way  measure.  The 
committee  of  revision,  to  whom  the  Convocation  intrusted  the 
work,  gave  more  than  ten  years  of  work  to  the  New  Testament. 
But  the  committee,  with  the  same  dread  of  criticism,  or  with 
superb  self-confidence,  unwisely  maintained,  during  all  those 
years,  absolute  secrecy  as  to  the  cliaracter  and  progress  of  their 
work,  until  it  was  too  late  to  correct  any  of  their  mistakes, — and 
they  made  many  mistakes  "  of  omission  and  of  commission." 
Nevertheless,  the  Revision  is  a  noble  monument  to  the  zeal  of  the 
Convocation,  and  to  the  ability  of  the  committee,  to  their  con- 
scientiousness, and,  with  much  reserve,  to  their  success.  It  was 
published  in  1881 ;  and  after  so  long  delay,  was  received  with 
great  enthusiasm,  and  with  much  disappointment. 

Tlie  Revision  has  not  had  the  general  and  favorable  acceptance 
which  so  labored  an  effort,  if  wisely  and  rightly  carried  out, 
deserved.  The  English  world  feels  that  the  Revision  is,  as  its 
name  indicates,  only  provisional,  and  is  not  the  last  word  of 
advance  in  this  direction.  The  impolicy  in  the  limit  which  the 
Convocation  set  for  the  movement,  and  the  unwise  secrecy  of  tlie 
committee,  have  hindered  the  acceptance  of  the  Revision.  At  some 
future  time,  all  the  Churches  of  English  Christendom  must  unite 
for  a  full  and  trustworthy  translation,  which  will  not  be  a  mere 
revision;  or,  what  is  now  more  probable,  if  not  more  desirable 
in  itself,  each  great  Church,  as  it  has  its  own  denominational 
literature,  its  own  denominational  theological  schools,  and  its  own 


PREFACE.  7 

denominational  pulpit,  will  have  its  own  denominational  transla- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  without  combinations,  and  without 
compromises.* 

Readers  of  the  Bible  ought  not  to  be  content  with  anything 
less  than  what  the  best  scholarship  can  give  them.  Especially  in 
critical  passages,  they  want  the  exactest  reproduction  of  the 
Greek.  The  Revised  (or  any  other  compromise  translation)  may 
answer,  as  the  Authorized  has  so  long  done,  for  general  cursory 
reading,  either  private  or  congregational ;  but  for  the  closet,  or 
the  study,  students  demand,  with  Browning,  to  know  just  what 
the  writers  of  the  Bible  thought,  and  just  how  they  spoke ;  they 
demand  the  most  literal  and  exact  translation  that  scholarship  can 
give  them,  "in  as  Greek  a  style  as  English  will  bear."  Fortu- 
nately, a  translation  so  made  can  be  made  also  just  as  suitable  for 
use  in  the  family  and  in  the  pulpit  as  the  less  exact  Authorized 
or  the  Revised. 

Such  is  the  critical  judgment  to  which  the  external  history 
and  the  internal  character  of  these  two  great  rival  translations 
lead  us. 

The  Parallel  translations  of  this  Epistle,  printed  in  some  edi- 
tions, illustrate  these  points.  They  show,  in  almost  every  verse, 
something  of  what  Bishop  Ellicott's  preface  to  the  Revised  calls 
"its  blemishes  and  imperfections,"  but  which  we  may  more 
correctly  call  its  deliberate  departures  from  the  apostle's  language 
and  meaning.  A  careful  count  shows  that  in  this  brief  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  containing  only  433  verses,  the  Revisers  made  more 
than  twelve  hundred  changes  from  the  Authorized.  But  the  cor- 
rected translation  here  given  makes  more  than  sixteen  hundred 
additional  changes  from  the  Revised.  Of  course,  most  of  those 
changes,  in  both  texts,  are  minute  in  themselves,  consisting,  for 
example,  of  modification  of  the  punctuation,  and  of  the  paragraph- 
ing ;  changes  in  the  capitalization  (as  Spirit  to  spirit,  viii,  6,  9) ;  a 
slight  modernizing  of  the  inflections  (as  hath  to  has)  ;  substituting 
one  word  for  another  (as  to  for  unto)  ;  a  rhetorical  rearrangement 
of  the  words  (as,  '  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations,'  to 
'  A  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee,'  iv,  17),  and  other 
such  accessory  points.     Such  textual  changes  do  not  greatly  affect 

*Thus,  the  American  Bible  Union,  has  given  the  Baptist  Churches  a 
translation  of  the  New  Testament  which,  without  being  perfect,  Is,  on  the 
whole  (aside  from  Its  peculiar  views),  better  than  the  Authorized,  better 
than  the  Revised. 


8  PREFACE. 

the  character  or  tlic  iiicaning  of  tlie  translation  ;  hut.  though 
mimito,  tlu'y  are  not,  tlicrefori',  trivial.  In  a  book  of  the  immense 
significance  of  this  epistle  (and  of  the  entire  New  Testament),  even 
the  minutest  points  must  be  of  some  moment.  At  the  least,  they 
are  of  the  kind  of  work  that  Horace  calls  "  the  labor  of  the  file ;" 
and  they  come  within  Browning's  demand  for  exactness.  But  of 
mucli  greater  significance  are  the  internal  changes  that  have  to  do 
with  the  meaning  of  the  several  words,  and  their  grammatical 
relation  to  each  other,  and  tlie  structure  of  the  sentences;  and, 
especially,  the  reproduction  of  the  thought.  These  changes  range 
from  the  minor  words  to  the  most  imi)ortant,  from  the  articles, 
the  particles,  the  conjunctions,  the  prepositions,  to  the  crucial 
verbs  and  substantives ;  to  the  grammatical  structure  of  the 
sentences,  and  to  the  logical  coherence  of  tlie  discourse.  Many  of 
these  things  in  the  Authorized  the  Revised  changed,  usually  for 
the  better;  but  many  equally  imi)ortant  things  that  ought  to  have 
been  changed,  it  did  not  touch;  and  it  sometimes  introduced 
errors  of  its  own. 

To  verify  these  statements  of  the  inaccuracies,  in  both  the 
Authorized  and  the  Revised,  it  is  necessary  to  give  specific  illus- 
trations ;  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  will  answer  as  well  as 
any  other  part  of  the  Bible. 

For  example :  The  first  eleven  verses  of  the  sixth  chapter, 
though  not  more  marked  than  many  other  passages,  furnish  in- 
stances of  error  (in  both  translations)  for  the  correction  of  which 
the  reader  may  consult  the  present  translation,  and  the  commen- 
tary on  the  passage.  1.  We  begin  with  a  minor  infelicity  in  the 
translations,  as  shown  in  the  unlike  renderings  for  the  dative 
case.  In  verse  2  we  read,  "We  died  to  sin;"  and  in  verse  10, 
"He  died  unto  sin."  In  both  places  the  Greek  is  the  same;  and 
the  meaning  is  the  same  ;  and  the  translation  should  be  the  same: 
"  We  died  to  sin ;  he  died  to  sin ;"  not  unto  sin,  but  to  sin  ;  that  is, 
to,  as  to,  as  regards;  for  which,  see  the  commentary.  2.  In  the 
fourth  verse  is  a  more  serious  mistake  in  the  meaning  of  one  of 
the  important  words.  Both  translations  read,  "That  we  also 
might  walk  in  ueu-neKS  of  life" — as  if  the  word  meant  in  a  mora i 
transformation,  or  regeneration.  But  the  woi-d  "also"  associates 
us  with  Christ,  who  did  not  experience  a  moral  transformation. 
The  translation  should  run,  "  That  we  also  may  walk  in  renewal  of 
life" — that  is,  in  a  judicial  restoration  to  a  new  career.  3.  The 
fifth  verse  reads,  "We  have  become  united  with  him  by  the  like- 


PREFACE.  9 

ness  of  his  death."     But  these  words  are  absolutely  destitute  of 
meaning ;  and  the  translation  should  run,  "in  the  sameness  with 
his  death."    4.  The  seventh  verse  reads,  "  He  that  hath  died  is 
justified  from  sin."     Here  is  a  double  en-or  in  the  tenses  of  the 
verbs:  The  first  verb  is  in  the  historical  aorist;  the  second  in  the 
present  perfect.     The  translation  should  run,  "  He  that  died  [with 
Christ]  has  been  justified  from  sin."     5.    The  ninth  verse  reads, 
"Christ  being  raised  from  the  dead  dieth  no  more."     Tlie  transla- 
tion, if  not  wi-ong,  is,  at  best,  ambiguous.     The  particijile  is  not 
in  the  present  tense,  denoting  a  present  action,  but  in  the  aorist, 
denoting  a  complete  action  ;  and  it  should  be  translated,  "  Christ 
having  been  raised."     Other  instances  are  common  of  the  same 
ambiguity.    For  example,  in  Eom.  iii,  24,  and  v,  1,  we  read  the  same 
words,  "being  justified,"  as  the  translation  of  two  different  Greek 
words!     In  the  first  passage,  in  which  the  Greek  participle  is  in 
the  present  tense,  and  expresses  a  continuous  action,  the  Revised 
translates,  "  For  all  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the  glory  of 
God,  being  justified  freely  by  his   grace."     (Rom.  iii,  24.)    This 
translation,   though   verbally   possible,   is   ambiguous;   and    the 
translation  should  run,  "  For  all  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the 
approval  of  God,  becoming  justified  (in  each  successive  instance), 
gratis,  by  his  grace."     In  the  second  passage,  in  which  the  Greek 
participle  is  in  the  aorist  tense,  and  expresses  a  completed  action, 
the  Revised  translates,   "Being  justified   by  faith,  let  us  have 
peace  with  God."     But  this  translation,  too,  though  verbally  pos- 
sible, is  ambiguous  ;  and  the  translation  should  run,  "Having  been 
jnstiiied  from  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God." 

These  are  some  only  of  the  inaccuracies  which  lie  on  the  sur- 
face in  the  translations  of  this  passage ;  and  many  such  can  be 
found  throughout  the  epistle,  and  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
The  treatment  of  the  simple  conjunctions  gives  us  another 
illustration  of  the  inaccuracies  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised. 
The  simple  continuative  conjunctions  in  the  Greek  language  are 
Kai  (or  tO,  which  always  means  and,  and  5^,  which  always  means 
but.  This  adversative  sense  of  5^,  but,  is  not  always  very  pro- 
nounced, but  it  is  always  felt  by  every  Greek  writer  and  reader. 
Plato  and  Paul  never  used  S4  when  they  meant  and;  and  no  Greek 
writer  ever  used  Kal  when  he  meant  but.  But  this  discrimination 
between  the  two  words  Kal  and  5^  is  quite  disregarded  in  both  the 
Authorized  and  the  Revised.  No  one  who  finds  the  word  and  in 
either  translation,  can  oi-dinarily  decide  which  word  it  represents. 


10  PREFACE. 

Kal  ov  bi;  for  cither  makt's  sense,  tliough  never  tlie  same  sense  as 
the  other.  And  sometimes  it  is  of  little  moment  which:  yet 
always  the  exact  meaning  of  the  sentence,  or  the  delicate  shade 
of  meaning,  turns  on  the  conjunction ;  and  the  translation  ought 
always  to  show  which  Greek  word  it  represents.  A  cursory  exam- 
ination of  the  Autliorized  translation  of  Romans,  shows  fifty-eight 
instances  in  whicli  the  Greek  word  o^,  but,  is  ti'anslated  by  and; 
and  the  Revised  sliows  about  tlie  same  number  of  mistranslations 
of  5^,  either  and,  or  now,  or  so,  or  howbeit,  or  some  other  of  fifteen 
words,  at  the  guess  of  the  revisers.  These  words  doubtless  give 
variety  to  the  revisers'  English  style;  but  they  do  not  translate 
Paul's  word,  or  express  his  precise  concept  in  the  sentence. 

Happily,  the  more  important  conjuntions,  the  logical  con- 
junctions of  cause  or  of  inference,  are  usually  translated  with 
a  fair  degree  of  correctness,  in  both  the  Authorized  and  in  the 
Revised.  Yet  sometimes  the  revisers,  in  attempting  the  periodic 
style,  in  the  place  of  Paul's  simpler  paratactic  construction,  have 
missed  the  proper  English  conjunction.  Thus  in  Rom.  vi,  17,  Paul 
says,  "  P>ut  thanks  be  to  God  tliat  ye  were  slaves  of  sin,  but  ye 
obeyed  from  the  heart  that  type  of  doctrine  into  which  ye  were 
initiated."  But  this  compound  sentence  with  the  simple  con- 
junction but,  the  revisers  replaced  with  a  complex  sentence,  and 
used  the  wrong  conjunction  to  express  the  apostle's  adversative 
concept.  They  say,  "  But  thanks  be  to  God,  that  whereas  ye  were 
servants  of  sin,  ye  became  obedient  from  the  heart."  But  the 
word  whereas,  which  means  }>rcause,  does  not  express  the  right 
dependence  of  the  thought:  the  logical  word  tliat  the  revisers 
needed  was  although:  "Thanks  be  to  God,  that  although  ye  were 
servants  of  sin,  ye  became  obedient  from  the  heart." 

There  is  another  class  of  little  words — the  prepositions — on  the 
exact  meaning  of  which  much  often  depends,  but  whose  meanings 
are  not  always  correctly  expressed  in  the  Authorized  and  the 
Revised.  These  translations  frequently  use  the  same  English 
l)reposition  to  express  different  Greek  constructions,  and  fre- 
quently different  English  pi-epositions  to  express  the  same  Greek 
construction.  AVe  have  already  seen  that  tliey  use  both  the  words 
to  and  unto  to  express  the  relation  of  the  Greek  dative  case.  Care- 
ful writers  in  English  use  the  woi-d  unto  (or  into),  to  denote 
(among  other  concepts),  the  motion,  or  tendency,  that  is  expressed 
in  Greek  by  the  preposition  els.  But  the  Authorized  and  the 
Revised    know    nothing   about    these   nice   distinctions.      In    this 


PREFACE.  11 

epistle,  the  Revised  uses  the  word  unto  thirty-three  times  to  ti-ans- 
late  the  dative  case.  An  illustration  of  this  confusion  of  the  two 
words  is  found  in  Rom.  iv,  3.  The  Revised  translates,  "  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  /or  righteous- 
ness." Here  the  Greek  pronoun  ain-qi  is  in  the  dative  case,  without 
any  preposition,  and  the  Greek  substantive  for  "  righteousness"  is 
the  object  of  the  preposition  eh.  Both  prepositions  in  the  English 
are  wrong;  and  the  translation  should  run,  "It  was  reckoned  to 
him  unto  justification."  Again,  in  Rom.  i,  17,  the  Authorized 
reads,  " revealed/?'o»i  faith  to  faith,"  in  which  the  first  prep- 
osition [iK]  is  correct,  the  second  [et's]  is  wrong.   The  Revised  reads 

the  woi"ds  " revealed  by  faith  unto  faith,"  in  which  the  first 

preposition  is  wrong,  the  second  correct.  The  translation  should 
run,  " is  revealed, //'o»!  faith,  unto  faith." 

Another,  and  more  significant  error  is  found  in  Rom.  iv,  25. 
Both  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised  translate  the  passage, 
"  Who  was  delivered /or  our  offenses  [Rev.,  trespasses],  and  was 
raised  again  for  our  justification."  The  Greek  preposition  in  both 
clauses  is  8id,  which  always  looks  to  the  past ;  and  its  proper  mean- 
ing is  "  on  account  of,"  and  it  does  not  mean  for  in  any  proper 
sense  of  the  English  word.  Most  English  readers  inevitably 
interpret  the  second  clause  as  meaning,  "  with  a  view  to  our  justi- 
fication;"  or,  "for  the  sake  of  bringing  about  our  justification,"  as 
if  the  justification  were  to  be  a  result  of  the  Savior's  resurrection. 
But  the  only  meaning  the  word  ^lo.  can  have  in  the  first  clause  is 
''^  on  account  o/ our  past  offenses;"  and  this  is  the  only  meaning, 
also,  of  the  preposition  in  the  second  clause ;  and  the  sense  is, 
that  Christ's  resurrection  was  because  of  our  justification.  The 
clauses  are  parallel  after  the  Hebrew  model ;  and  the  correct 
translation  gives  the  verse  an  entirely  different  turn  from  that 
of  the  old  translations.  The  translation  should  run,  "  He  was 
delivered  [to  death]  on  account  of  our  trespasses ;  and  he  was 
raised  again  on  account  of  our  justification  ;"  that  is,  because,  by 
his  vicarious  death,  he  had  wrought  out  our  justification. 

But  this  same  ambiguous  English  preposition  "for"  is  mus- 
tered into  service  by  the  old  translations  in  an  entii-ely  different 
sense,  as  tlie  translation,  or  mistranslation,  of  another  Greek 
preposition,  itTr^p,  "  instead  of ."  In  2  Cor.  v,  14,  the  Authorized 
translates,  "  AVe  thus  judge  [judged]  that  if  one  died /or  all,  then 
were  all  dead  [all  died] ;  and  he  died /or  all,  that  they  which  live 
should  not  henceforth  live  unto  Fto^  themselves,  but  unto  [to]  him 


12  PREFACE. 

which  died  fur  them,  and  rose  again."  Now,  in  these  three 
clauses,  the  preposition  is  the  same  (inr^p) ;  and  the  translation 
for,  thrice  repeated,  is,  perhaps,  verbally  correct,  though  it  is 
ambiguous.  The  Pauline  concept  in  the  pa.s3age  is  clearly  that 
Christ's  death  was  substitutionary,  though  the  translation  does 
not  make  this  as  explicit  as  it  ought  to  have  done. 

In  the  first  two  clauses,  the  revisers  translate  the  prepositions 
correctly,  ''for"  [that  is  instead  of];  but  the  last  clause  they 
translate,  '"but  unto  [to]  him,  who /or  their  sdkes  died  and  rose 
again."  This  translation  for  this  word  vr^p,  for  their  sakes,  is  fre- 
quently correct  in  other  connections,  but  it  is  not  self-consistent 
or  possible  in  this  connection.  If  in  the  thii-d  clause  of  this  verse, 
this  preposition  means  "for  their  sokes;"  it  ought  also  to  be  so 
translated  in  the  Jirst  clause,  "  one  died  for  the  sake  of  all ;  there- 
fore all  died."  But  such  a  proposition  is  not  Pauline;  it  is  a 
logical  inconsequence,  a  non-se^^iitur,  too  bold  for  even  the  revis- 
ers to  admit  it.  Clearly  this  is  not  Paul's  meaning.  Clearly  the 
revisers'  change  of  the  word  in  tlie  thii-d  clause  is  not  &tra)ii<lation, 
but  a  commentary;  and  worse,  it  is  a  commentary  that  perverts 
the  evangelical  teaching  of  Christ's  death  as  a  substitution  in  the 
place  of  man,  to  the  un-Pauline  teaching  that  his  death  is  a  mere 
humanitarian  sacrifice  of  himself,  like  that  of  the  proto-martyr,  or 
of  Paul  himself,  or  of  any  other  of  the  noble  army  of  confessors, 
who  have  died  for  the  sake  of  man.  Clearly  the  revisers  have 
emptied  the  passage  of  the  one  meaning  which  makes  it  precious 
to  the  believer  in  Christ's  vicarious  atonement.  Clearly  the 
translation  (omitting  the  woi-d  if  from  the  Greek  text),  should 
run,  "We  thus  judged  that  One  died  instead  of  all;  therefoi'e, 
they  all  died  ;  and  he  died  instead  of  all,  that  they  that  live  should 
no  longer  live  to  themselves,  but  to  him  who  instead  of  them  died 
and  rose  again." 

In  the  twentieth  verse  of  this  chapter  (2  Cor.  v,  20),  the 
revisei-s  repeat  the  same  error  in  the  translation  of  inr^p.  They 
say,  "  "We  are  ambassadors  on  behalf  of  Christ;  we  beseech  you  on 
behalf  of  Christ,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God.  Him  who  knew  no 
sin,  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf."  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
what  meaning  the  words  "on  behalf  of  Christ"  can  have  in  this 
connection.  Christ  has  no  interests  at  stake  that  the  ambassadors 
can  safeguai"d.  They  do  not  benefit  Christ,  but  represent  him. 
And  in  the  twenty-first  verse  it  is  difficult  to  understand  what 
the  apostle's  words  can  mean  except  Christ's  substitution  in  our 


PREFACE.  13 

place.  The  translation  (dropping  the  Hebraisms),  should  run, 
"  We  come  ambassadors  instead  0/ Christ;  we  beseech  you  instead 
of  Christ.  Him  who  knows  not  sin,  he  made  sinful  instead  of  us, 
that  we  may  become  justified  of  God  in  him." 

There  is  another  instance,  in  Rom.  viii,  3,  in  which  this  same 
Greek  preposition  vir^p  has  troubled  the  revisers.  They  are  not 
satisfied  with  the  usual  ambiguous  rendering  of  the  word,  "for;" 
and  the  other  explicit  meaning  "for  the  sake  of"  is  clearly  not 
appropriate  here ;  and  so,  to  relieve  this  embarrassment  over  the 
word  for,  they  forget  their  single  duty  as  translators,  and  add  a 
commentary  (without,  however,  including  it  in  brackets).  They 
translate  the  verse,  "God  sending  [having  sent]  his  own  Son  in 
the  likeness  of  [the  sameness  with]  sinful  flesh,  and  as  an  offering 
for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh."  But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Greek,  or  in  the  concept  of  the  passage,  corresponding  to  the  added 
words  "as  an  offering."  The  difficulty  of  the  revisers  is  imagi- 
nary; and,  at  any  rate,  is  not  lessened  by  the  added  words;  the 
preposition  "for,"  expresses  precisely  what  it  would  without  the 
interpolation.  The  connection  makes  everything  clear,  and  Paul's 
words  "for  sin"  mean  simply  "for  the  abolition  of  sin."  The 
translation  should  run,  "God,  having  sent  his  own  Son  in  the 
sameness  with  the  flesh  of  sin,  and /or  sin,  condemned  [and  abol- 
ished] the  sin  in  the  flesh." 

Another  frequent  inaccuracy  in  the  Authorized  and  the 
Revised  is  shown  in  their  treatment  of  the  definite  article.  The 
Greek  article  and  the  English  article  are  nearly  equivalent  in  their 
functions  and  constructions.  But  the  Authorized  seems  to  have  had 
no  law  whatever  to  regulate  the  introduction  or  the  omission  of  the 
article  ;  it  inserts  it  at  random  where  it  is  absent  from  the  Greek, 
and  omits  it  at  random  where  it  is  present  in  the  Greek.  The 
revisers  also  practically  do  the  same  thing  in  the  body  of  the  text, 
as  if  they  too  were  without  law  in  the  matter  of  the  article ;  yet 
sometimes,  as  if  conscious  that  this  text  is  wrong,  they  give  an 
alternate  translation  in  the  margin,  by  noting  that  the  article  is, 
or  is  not,  in  the  Greek.  For  example,  in  Rom.  iii,  20,  the  revis- 
ers read  in  the  text,  "  By  [from]  the  works  of  the  law  shall  [will] 
no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight ;  for  through  the  law  cometh  the 
knowledge  of  sin."  Here  they  insert  the  article  four  times;  but 
note  at  the  same  time,  in  the  margin,  that  the  first  three  are 
wrong.  All  four  are  wrong.  And  similarly  in  very  many  places 
else.     Thus,  a  rapid  count  shows  that  in  the  first  eight  chapters  of 


14  PREFACi:. 

this  epistle,  they  insert  the  article  erroiu'ourily  sixty  times  ;  in  evei-y 
one  of  which  the  apostle's  exact  meaning  is  lost.  If  the  reader  of 
the  Revised  follows  the  body  of  the  translation,  apart  from  the 
margin  (as,  of  course,  most  readers  do),  he  misses  the  sharp  and 
signifieant  discrimination  which  Paul  always  makes  between  a  noun 
with  the  article,  and  tlie  noun  witiiout  the  article;  for  example, 
between  "the  law"  and  "law."  Thus,  in  Kom.  ii,  13,  the 
Authorized  incorrectly  reads:  "  Not  the  hearers  of  ihr  law  are  just 
before  (lod,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  [will]  be  justified." 
But  in  tliis  passage  the  revisers,  noticing  that  the  definite  article 
is  not  in  the  Greek,  but  not  recognizing  either  the  Greek  or  the 
English  anarthrous  idiom,  substitute  the  indefinite  article,  where 
the  Authorized  uses  the  definite  article:  "  Not  the  hearers  of  a  law 
are  just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  a  law  shall  [will]  be  justified." 
Of  course,  either  article,  definite  or  indefinite,  perverts  tlie  apos- 
tle's sense;  and  the  translation  should  run,  "Not  the  hearers  of 
law  are  just  before  God  ;  but  the  doers  of  law  will  be  justified." 
"^r,  In  some  critical  passages,  the  insertion  of  the  article  contrary 
to  the  Greek,  completely  obscures  the  apostle's  meaning.  The 
famous  Resurrection  chapter  gives  us  a  notable  instance.  The 
Revised  translation  reads,  "Now  [but]  if  Christ  is  preached  that 
he  hath  been  raised  from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that 
there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead?  (1  Cor,  xv,  12.)  The  apostle 
is  usually  understood  to  teach,  in  these  words,  the  general  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  ;  but  such  is  not  his  cue  in  this  place ;  he  is 
simply  reporting  the  ern)r  of  certain  Corinthians  who  once 
"  received  his  preaching  that  Christ  died,  and  was  buried,  and  arose; 
and  who  still  stand  in  this  faith,"  yet  inconsistently  "say  that 
there  is  no  resurrection."  And  so  Paul  is  not  arguing  here  that 
because  Christ  rose,  all  the  dead  will  rise;  though  that  is  true  in 
itself,  and  is  a  doctrine  which  he  had  already  taught  the  Corinth- 
ians, and  abundantly  sets  fortli  elsewhere.  The  Greek  here  has  no 
article,  and  tlie  word  "dead  men"  in  the  expression,  "no  resur- 
rection of  dead  men,"  is  not  enumerative,  but  descriptive  of  a  class. 
All  that  Paul  here  implies  is,  that  if  Christ,  a  dead  man,  arose, 
then  a  resurrection  of  dead  men  is  not  impossible.  The  single 
instance  of  such  a  resurrection  establishes  the  possibility  ;  and  the 
insertion  of  the  article  misses  the  point  of  the  sentence.  The 
translation  should  run,  "  But  if  Christ  is  preached  that  he  has  been 
raised  from  dead  men,  how  say  some  among  you,  that  there  is  no 
resuvrectiou  of  dead  men  f" 


PREFACE.  16 

A  similar  instance  of  this  error  in  the  insertion  of  the  article, 
and  obscuration  of  the  meaning,  is  found  in  Acts  xvii,  32.  The 
Revised  translation  reads,  "Now  [but]  when  they  heard  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  some  mocked."  But  there  is  no  article 
here  in  the  Greek;  and  the  translation  should  run,  "But  when 
they  heard  of  a  resurrection  of  dead  men,  some  began  to  mock." 

These  are  instances,  which  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied, 
of  the  failures  in  both  the  Authorized  and  in  the  Revised  to  ex- 
press the  exact  meaning  of  the  Greek.  But  besides  the  mistakes 
in  expressing  the  meaning  of  the  Greek,  these  translations  are 
open  to  continuous  criticism  on  the  score  of  their  English  idiom. 
One  of  their  most  regrettable  errors  in  this  direction  is  their  ex- 
pression of  the  future  tense  of  verbs,  an  error  which  often  gives  an 
un-English  turn  to  the  meaning,  and  a  lurid  color  to  the  sentiment, 
very  different  from  that  of  the  original.  The  marked  discrimina- 
tion in  meaning  and  tone  expressed  by  the  two  English  auxiliaries 
of  the  future  tense,  will  and  shall,  is  one  which  the  Greek  lan- 
guage can  not  mark,  but  which  the  English  language  must  make, 
in  every  instance,  correctly  or  incorrectly.  Macaulay  says,  "  Not 
one  Englishman  in  a  million  ever  confounds  his  will  and  shall." 
But  unfortunately  for  the  exact  sense  of  innumerable  passages  in 
the  English  Bible,  and  for  its  ethical  tone,  it  is  a  discrimination 
that  seems  almost  unknown,  both  to  King  James's  translators  and 
to  the  Canterbury  revisers.  In  simple  declarations,  and  in  ques- 
tions, of  the  first  person,  they  usually  have  the  right  auxiliary; 
but  in  verbs  of  the  second  and  third  persons,  they  generally  man- 
age to  get  the  auxiliary  verbs  wrong ;  they  use  shall  instead  of 
will.  For  example,  in  this  saying  from  Christ,  the  Authorized 
translates,  "  He  that  belie veth  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned"  (Mark  xvi,  16);  and  in  this  saying 
from  Paul  it  translates,  "If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die ; 
but  if  ye  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live  "  (Rom,  viii, 
13).  With  these  translations,  the  Revised  substantially  and 
wholly  agrees ;  and  in  hundreds  of  similar  constructions.  But  in 
these  passages  this  autocratic  word  shall  expresses,  to  an  English 
reader,  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  Christ  and  of  Paul  that  the  results 
be  brought  about:  "He  shall  be  damned  ;"  "  je  shall  die."  But 
a  correct  English  idiom  in  all  these  places  requires  the  milder 
predictive  auxiliary  will  in  the  place  of  the  obligative  shall.  And 
the  translation  should  run,  "He  that  believes  not  will  be  con- 
demned ;"  and  "  If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  will  die."     Unfortu- 


IG  PREFACE. 

nately,  these,  and  similar  sentences,  which  are  but  the  pathetic 
exclaim  of  a  prophet,  arc  usually,  as  the  compulsive  word  shall 
suggests,  bt'toned  and  emphasized  by  the  reader,  even  in  the  pul- 
|)it,  as  the  stern  dicta  of  a  lawgiver  or  a  judge.  When  Christ 
wept  over  Jerusalem,  he  was  not  in  a  mood  to  denounce  its  ruin, 
as  the  Revised  makes  him  say,  "The  days  of  affliction  shall  come 
upon  thee."  To  his  eye,  coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before: 
lie  saw,  and  wept,  and  said,  "If  thou  hadst  but  known!  for  the 
days  of  calamity  vjUI  come."  (Luke  xix,  43.)  This  violation  of 
English  idiom  is  found,  usually  many  times,  in  every  chapter  of 
the  four  Gospels  (with  only  eiglit  exceptions,  in  which  there  was 
no  occasion  for  the  mistake:  Matt,  xiv  ;  Mark  v,  xv  ;  Luke  xxiv ; 
John  ii,  ix,  xviii,  xx). 

A  remarkable  illustration  of  this  wrong  use  of  shall  instead  of 
will,  is  found  in  the  twenty-fourth  chapter  of  Matthew,  in  which 
both  the  Authoi'ized  and  the  Revised  give  many  times  over,  this 
incorrect  meaning  and  this  unhappy  tone  to  the  Lord's  lamenta- 
tions over  Jerusalem.  In  the  fifty-one  verses  of  this  chapter  they 
use  the  woiti  shall  fifty-seven  times;  of  which,  just  fifty  are  incor- 
rect. In  the  whole  chapter  there  is,  in  the  Authorized,  but  one 
solitary  instance  in  which  the  word  will  is  used  correctly  (copied 
from  Tjndale,  by  inadvertence) :  "  For  whei-e  the  carcass  is,  there 
will  the  vultures  be  gathered  together."  (Verse  28.)  And  the 
Revised  (was  it  by  another  inadvertence?)  gives  also  the  forty- 
seventh  verse  correctly:  "  He  will  set  him  over  all  that  he  hath." 
In  these  errors.  King  James's  translators  were  perhaps  less  to 
blame  three  hundred  years  ago,  before  will  and  shall  became  so 
sharply  discriminated ;  but  the  Canterbui-y  revisers,  in  the  year 
1881,  are  not  pardonable  for  perpetuating  all  these  old  and  sinis- 
trous  blunders  in  the  English  of  the  twentieth  century. 

I  come  now  to  some  matters  personal,  and  to  the  use  of  the 
odious  pronoun  I. 

"With  the  conviction  that  the  old  translations,  in  many  places 
and  in  many  ways,  do  not  express  the  exact  sense  of  the  Greek, 
I  have  attempted  in  this  translation  to  reproduce  for  my  readers, 
literally  and  exactly,  in  as  good  English  as  the  Greek  permits,  the 
apostle's  turn  of  thought  and  turn  of  expression.  And  I  have 
written  the  commentary  to  justify  the  translation,  and  to  expound 
the  apostle's  meaning.  Of  course,  I  do  not  expect  or  desire  to 
displace  the  King  James,  and  the  Canterbury,  from  their  place  in 
the  family  and  in  the  pulpit,  though  this  corrected  ti'anslation  is 


PREFACE.  17 

adapted  to  these  offices  also.  Its  only  claim  to  recognition  is  that 
it  is  better  fitted  than  the  standai-d  translations  for  the  closet  and 
for  the  study. 

I  hope  that  the  reader  will  have  no  difficulty  in  understandnig 
the  language  and  the  connection  of  thought  in  the  translation ; 
and  that  the  student  will  be  able  to  comprehend,  if  not  to  accept, 
the  exegesis  given  in  the  commentary.  I  have  made  the  way 
easier  for  him  in  the  latter  by  the  fact  that,  as  a  teacher,  accus- 
tomed to  the  many  repetitions  of  the  class-room,  I  have  not  hesi- 
tated, at  the  risk  of  overfullness,  to  repeat  many  times,  in  varied 
form,  the  less  obvious  but  more  important  points  in  the  apostle's 
discussion,  and  in  my  exegesis  of  them;  as,  for  example,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Gentiles  to  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  the  Pauline  con- 
cept of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Thus,  in  almost  every  part  of  the 
book,  the  reader  will  find  the  apostle's  views  more  or  less  fully 
canvassed  and  expressed. 

In  the  exegesis  of  this  epistle,  I  accept,  without  dissent,  what 
I  think  to  be  its  teachings.  If  Paul  is  mistaken  in  his  theology,  or 
his  philosophy,  as  some  advanced  critics  believe,  that  is  not  my 
present  concern.  I  do  not  hold  myself  responsible  for  a  defense  of 
his  views,  as  if  debatable,  but  only  for  an  explanation  of  his  views. 
Whatever  Paul  teaches  is,  for  the  present  issue,  "orthodox"  and 
final.  As  a  patient  scholar  of  the  Master,  and  of  the  great  apostle, 
I  have  reached  conclusions  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  gospel,  and 
the  meaning  of  this  epistle,  that  seem  to  me  to  be  very  satisfac- 
tory. I  do  not  see  any  weak  place,  or  places,  in  my  interpretation  ; 
and  I  have  therefore  set  forth  my  views,  in  the  main,  as  confi- 
dently as  if  there  were  no  diflferent  views.  I  shall  be  gratified  if 
they  commend  themselves  to  the  minds  of  others  as  at  least  self- 
consistent,  if  not  satisfactory.  Yet  I  do  not  expect  unanimity  on 
debatable  points,  and  I  frankly  concede  that  I  may  sometimes  be 
mistaken  in  my  conclusions.  It  will  not  be  an  unprecedented 
experience  that  an  expositor  of  this  epistle  should  be  wrong.  But 
we  may  all  accept  Hooker's  thought  about  the  Scriptures:  "Let 
us  not  think  that,  as  long  as  the  world  doth  t-ndure,  the  wit  of 
man  shall  be  able  to  sound  the  bottom  of  that  which  may  be  con- 
cluded out  of  the  Scriptures."     (Eccl.  Polity,  I,  xiv,  2.) 

I  have  avoided  the  display  of  learning.     It  would  be  easy  "  to 
quote  the  original ;"  but  for  ordinary  readers  (of  whom  I  hope  to 
have  many),  and  even  for  experts,  I  prefer,  except  in  a  few  crit- 
ical instances,  to  present,  not  the  processes  of  scholarship,  but  the 
2 


18  PREFACE. 

results.  The  few  Greek  and  Hebrew  woi-ds  found  in  the  book,  are 
given  not  for  parade,  but  for  easier  reference,  for  those  who 
understand  them ;  and  others  may  easily  pass  them  by,  witliout 
interrupting  the  continuity  of  the  discussion. 

This  book  does  not  appeal  to  the  great  scholars  and  exegetes 
for  its  right  to  be,  or  for  approval.  I  am  glad  so  often  to  be  in 
agreement  with  others,  whom  I  honor,  but  whom,  nevertheless, 
I  have  not  copied.  In  most  cases,  I  have  worked  out  the  common 
result.  On  the  other  hand,  I  often  differ  from  the  exegetes ;  yet 
I  rarely  pause  to  defend  my  views.  In  most  places  I  am  content 
to  let  the  translation  and  the  commentary  stand  on  their  own 
independent  merits,  modest  contributions  to  the  study  of  one  of 
the  world's  great  books. 

Finally,  I  have  not  waged  a  polemic,  either  exegetical  or  doc- 
trinal, against  others;  and  I  have  antagonized  views,  different 
from  those  of  the  commentary,  only  where  the  difference  is  vital; 
as,  for  example,  in  the  difference  between  Paulinism  and  Calvin- 
ism. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  a  discussion  of  the  relation  of 
the  Gentile  world  to  God's  plan  of  salvation. 

This  discussion  was  incidental  to  the  apostle's  cireumstances. 
The  synagogue  believed  that  no  one  could  be  saved  except  the 
Jews;  and  all  the  early  believers  in  Christ,  being  Jews,  held 
traditionally  the  same  convJction.  Paul  was  the  first  Jew,  the  first 
Christian,  to  accept  and  to  teach  the  equality  of  the  Gentiles  with 
the  Jews,  and  this  epistle  is  his  defense  of  the  rights  of  the  Gen- 
tiles against  the  Jewish  assumption  that  excluded  them  from  the 
Church,  and  from  the  chance  of  salvation.  Paul's  discussion  in 
this  epistle  involves  two  questions,  which,  however,  in  his  treat- 
ment of  them,  so  intertwine  with  each  other,  as  practically  to 
constitute  but  one;  namely,  Who  may  be  saved?  and.  On  what 
conditions  may  they  be  saved?  These  are  the  essential  points  in 
this  discussion  ;  everything  else,  whether  in  the  course  of  the  main 
argument  in  the  first  eleven  chapters,  or  in  the  side  issues  in  the 
supplementary  chapters,  is  incidental  to  his  one  theme. 

RANGE  OF  THE  DISCUSSION. 

The  discussion  is  definitely  restricted  to  these  limits.  But 
many  writers  not  seeing  that  the  discussion  lies  wholly  within  the 
limits  named,  and  thinking  to  do  more  honor  to  the  apostle, 
describe  the  compass  and  the  structure  of  the  epistle  in  exagger- 
ated terms.  For  example  (to  mention  only  some,  of  different 
schools,  of  the  recent  copyists  of  the  old  opinions  in  the  same 
direction),  Gifford,  in  the  Speaker's  Commentary,  says:  "This 
epistle  furnishes  a  general  and  systematic  statement  of  Christian 
doctrine."  Olshausen  says:  "  It  contains  a  complete  system  of 
divinity,  since  all  the  essential  topics  of  the  gospel  are  here  devel- 
oped at  length."  And  Shedd  says:  "  It  contains,  in  itself,  a  whole 
body  of  divinity,  and  io  even  so  encyclopedic  in  its  structure  that 

19 


20  INTROD  UC  TION. 

the  human  inind  need  not  go  outside  of  this  epistle  in  order  to 
know  all  religious  truth."  But  these  assertions  clearly  show  that 
the  writers  had  only  the  vaguest  apprehension  of  the  subject  of 
the  epistle,  or  of  Paul's  management  of  the  argument.  Such 
extravagance  injures  the  cause  of  the  truth.  It  leads  the  sober 
reader  who  finds  for  himself  no  such  general  didactic  in  the 
epistle,  to  think  that  he  has  misunderstood  the  apostle,  and,  per- 
haps, is  incapable  of  understanding  him  ;  or,  worse,  it  tempts  him 
to  abandon  the  study  of  the  epistle,  discouraged,  if  not  dazed,  by 
its  supposed  abstruseness.  It  is  thus  that  even  Coleridge  declares, 
that,  "The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  most  profound  work  in 
existence ;  it  undoubtedly  is,  and  must  be,  very  obscure  to  the 
ordinary  reader." 

SUBJECT  NOT  ABSTRUSE. 

But  the  subject  matter  of  the  epistle  is  not  abstruse ;  and 
though  there  are  some  difficulties  in  the  treatment  of  the  theme, 
owing  to  the  brevity  and  compactness  of  the  argument,  and  to  its 
remoteness  from  the  modern  topics  of  theology,  yet  to  one  who 
recognizes  the  apostle's  aim,  the  apostle  is  not  obscure;  and  it  is 
not  difficult  as  a  whole  to  understand.  Peter's  "  hard  places  "  in 
his  bi'other  Paul's  letters,  were  probably  matters  of  debated 
theology,  and  not  of  thought.  (2  Pet.  iii,  16.)  Tlie  apostle  of  tlie 
circumcision  understood  the  apostle  of  the  uncircumcision  only 
too  well. 

NOT  A  BODY  OF  DIVINITY. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  not,  as  these  critics  have  thought, 
a  body  of  divinity,  or  a  discussion  of  Christian  experience.  The 
sole  intent  of  the  apostle  was  to  maintain  the  equality  of  the 
Gentiles  against  the  assumption  of  the  Jews.  It  could  not  have 
been  his  purpose,  in  this  epistle,  to  give  a  systematic  exposition  of 
the  gospel ;  for,  first,  at  this  early  date,  before  any  of  the  Gospels 
was  written,  Paul  had  not  sufficiently  thought  the  Christian 
theology  out,  to  be  able  to  discuss  it  systematically,  as  modern 
theologians,  with  the  help  of  the  entii*e  New  Testament,  are  able 
to  do  in  our  scientific  method  ;  and,  secondly,  there  are,  in  fact, 
many  leading  subjects  in  Biblical  theology  that  this  epistle  does 
not  touch  on  at  all,  or,  at  the  most,  barely  touches  on;  including 
such  fundamental  points  as  penitence  for  sin,  conversion,  forgive- 
ness, adoption,  regeneration,  sanctification.  all  matters  of  practical 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

religion,  and  all  eschatological  issues.  The  writer  had  before  him 
but  a  single  and  very  distinct  theme— the  rights  of  the  Gentiles 
before  God ;  and  his  discussion  confined  to  this  one  theme  is  sim- 
ple, direct,  and  coherent,  and  leads  the  reader  to  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  understanding  of  the  matter  in  debate,  and  of  it  alone. 
From  this  line  of  thought,  the  apostle  never  deviated ;  he  never 
introduced  irrelevant  matter.  He  knew  just  what  he  wanted  to 
say,  and  he  said  it. 

ERRONEOUS  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

The  exegetes  who  think  the  epistle  a  systematic  treatise  on 
divinity,  make,  in  general  terms,  the  first  five  chapters  a  discus- 
sion of  the  doctrine  of  justification  from  faith,  and  the  next 
three  chapters  a  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  sanctification.  But 
this  division  of  the  epistle  is  purely  fanciful;  and  completely 
misses  the  one  practical  issue  which  runs  through  the  whole  dis- 
cussion ;  namely,  that,  in  God's  plans,  the  Gentiles  stand  on  a  per- 
fect equality  with  the  Jews.  Beyond  doubt,  in  establishing  this 
truth,  the  apostle  needed  to  insist  upon  the  one  fundamental 
doctrine,  that  there  is  but  one  method  of  justification  before  God, 
the  same  for  Jews  as  for  Gentiles— the  justification  from  faith, 
and  not  from  works.  But  he  does  not  isolate  this  doctrine  from 
other  doctrines,  and  then  discuss  them  seriatim;  for  this  one  doc- 
trine runs  through  the  whole  of  the  epistle,  in  one  part  as  much  as 
in  the  other;  yet,  while  fundamental  in  theology,  it  stands  here 
only  as  a  subordinate  issue  to  the  dominant  question,  Who  then 
may  be  saved?  Is  it  Jews  only?  or,  Are  Gentiles  also  salvable? 
And  the  great  doctrine,  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  sanctification,  he 
does  not  discuss  at  all,  and  scarcely  even  alludes  to  it.  These 
two  issues,  Who  are  salvable,  and,  On  what  condition,  the  apostle, 
with  only  incidental  digressions,  keeps  constantly  before  his  mind. 
Of  these  two  issues,  one  is  the  great  central  thought  of  the  epistle, 
that  God  took  all  men,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  equally  into  his 
eternal  plans  ;  the  other  is  that  tlie  condition  upon  which  all  men, 
Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  come  into  this  gracious  relation,  is  faith 
in  the  provisions  of  the  gospel.  Yet  these  two  lines  of  thought 
are  not  treated  separately,  or  consecutively,  but  are  woven 
together  as  the  discussion  goes  on,  and  unite  as  the  warp  and 
woof  of  one  perfect  web. 

But  this  narrowing  of  the  range  of  the  discussion  does  not 
detract  from  the  gi-eatness  of  the  epistle,  or  lessen  its  value  to 


22  INTRODUCTION^. 

the  Church.  It  remains  one  of  the  world's  great  masterpieces; 
great  in  its  subject,  great  in  its  style,  great  in  its  majestic  thought, 
great  in  its  influence  over  the  theology  of  the  Church.  Though  not 
a  system  of  divinity,  it  easily  holds  the  highest  place  in  Christian 
literature.  Only  the  Fourth  Gospel,  though  occupying  an  entirely 
different  field  of  thought,  can  rank  as  the  equal  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans. 

THE  EPISTLE  CONTROVERSIAL. 

The  epistle  is  not  didactic,  or  not  that  mainly ;  rather  it  is 
controversial,  a  forensic  defense,  before  the  tribunal  of  the  human 
conscience,  of  the  equity  of  the  gospel  plan ;  the  apology  of  one 
who  would  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man.  Paul  holds  that  God's 
dealings  with  man  aimed,  fi*om  the  first,  at  the  salvation  of  all 
men  alike,  on  uniform  and  equitable  conditions.  And  it  is  in  view 
of  the  equitableness  of  God's  plan  that  the  apostle  declares  that 
"  he  is  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ."  The  advocate  of 
such  a  gospel,  he  can  look  men  in  the  face,  without  blushing  for 
God  who  planned  the  gracious  and  generous  scheme,  and  without 
blushing  for  himself  as  the  ambassador  of  God,  as  he  presses  home 
upon  their  consciences,  the  divine  fair  dealing  which,  unlike  the 
Jewish  exclusiveness,  gives  every  man,  the  Gentile  as  well  as  the 
Jew,  an  equal  chance. 

THE  ISSUE  ONLY  AN  INCIDENT  TO  THE  GOSPEL. 

This  epistle,  far  from  being  a  complete  system  of  divinity, 
is,  in  fact,  the  discussion  of  only  an  incident  to  the  gospel;  an 
incident  of  large,  practical  moment,  doubtless,  to  the  apostle's 
readers  of  that  day,  but  of  little  moment,  in  itself,  to  the  readers 
of  the  present  day.  The  Church  of  Christ  has  gotten  beyond  the 
need  of  that  discussion.  But  aside  from  the  settlement  of  the 
matter  then  in  issue,  whether  the  Gentiles  might  be  saved,  the 
apostle,  happily  for  the  Church,  introduces  much  other  evangelical 
truth,  the  foundation  of  all  Christian  theology.  It  is  this  that 
gives  the  epistle  its  great  and  enduring  value. 

CAN  GENTILES  BE  SAVED?    ON  WHAT  TERMS? 

The  theme  of  the  epistle  is  announced  in  the  words,  "  For  the 
gospel  is  God's  power  unto  salvation,  to  every  one  that  has  faith, 
both  Jew  AND  Gentile.  For  in  it  is  revealed  God's  plan  of  .iusti- 
FiCATioN  from  FAITH,  with  a  view  to  faith ;  as  it  has  been  written, 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

'But  the  JUST  FROM  FAITH  WILL  HAVE  LIFE '  "  (Rom.  i,  16, 17.)  The 
words  here  given  in  small  capitals  mark  the  cruciul  points  in  this 
epistle,  exclusive  of  all  other  great  themes  in  Christian  theology. 
The  apostle  does  not  discuss.  What  is  the  gospel?  nor,  "What  are  its 
great  doctrines?  but  simply  the  two  salient  points  before  named. 
Those  constantly  interlace  with  each  other,  yet  foremost  to  Paul's 
mind  stands  the  one  gi-eat  question,  Who  are  embraced  in  the 
provisions  of  God's  plan?  Are  Jews  only  the  subjects  of  his  gra- 
cious purpose?  or,  are  Gentiles  also  admissible  to  its  privileges?  "Is 
God  God  of  Jews  only?  Is  he  not  God  of  Gentiles  also?"  And 
then  rises  to  his  mind  the  other  point  (which  is  not  second  in 
intrinsic  importance,  but  merely  in  its  subordinate  moment  in 
this  discussion).  On  what  basis,  under  the  gospel  plan,  may  Gen- 
tiles be  justified?  Is  it  from  works  of  law,  as  the  Jews  held  for 
themselves?  or  is  it  from  faith  in  Christ?  To  these  questions, 
Paul  answers,  "  Yes,  God  is  God  of  Gentiles  also  ;  and  Gentiles  [and 
the  Jews,  too]  are  justified  not  from  works  of  law,  but  from  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ."  These  words  show  Paul's  understanding  of  the 
scope  of  the  divine  plan,  and  of  the  method  of  salvation.  And 
this  is  really  the  only  issue  in  the  whole  discussion,  the  issue, 
apart  from  which  the  apostle  had  no  occasion  to  write  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  He  wanted  to  show  them,  in  antagonism  to  the 
current  Jewish  belief,  that  the  divine  plan,  dating  from  the  eter- 
nal ages,  was  as  wide  as  the  race.  It  contemplated  not  the  Jews 
only  (as  they  thought),  or  mainly;  but  the  Gentiles  first  and  fore- 
most, before  there  were  any  Jews. 

THE  PROMISE  TO  ABRAHAM. 
Such  is  Paul's  interpretation  of  the  gracious  and  large  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  the  man  of  faith,  while  he  was  yet  in  uncir- 
cumcision:  "And  the  Scripture  having  foreseen  that  God  would 
justify  the  Gentiles  from  faith,  of  old  preached  the  gospel  to  Abra- 
ham, that.  In  thee  will  all  the  Gentiles  be  blessed."  (Gal.  iii,  8.) 
This  salvation  of  the  Gentile  world  (which  at  first  was  all  the 
world)  was  the  gi-eat  end  for  which  God  established  his  Church  in 
the  world,  and  his  covenant  with  Abraham. 

CALL  OF  THE  JEWS. 
The  call  of  the  Jews,  which  was  an  after-plan,  and  the  giving 
of  the  law  on  Sinai,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  still  later,  did 
not  suspend,  or  amend,  or  modify,  the  simple  and  all-comprehen- 


24  INTRODUCTION. 

sive  promise  to  the  father  of  the  faithful.  Judaism  was  not  the 
end  for  wliich  God  established  his  Church  (though  the  Jews  arro- 
gated this  to  themselves)  ;  it  was  only  a  provisional  arrangement 
to  further  his  world-plan  for  the  rest  of  mankind.  Under  this 
arrangement  the  Jews  were  elect,  not  for  themselves  alone,  or 
mainly,  but  tliat,  as  a  missionary  Church,  they  might  bring  back 
the  lapsed  Gentile  world  to  God.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  full 
of  announcements  to  the  Jewish  Chui'ch  to  this  effect :  "I  will 
give  thee  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that  my  salvation  may  be 
unto  the  end  of  the  earth"  (Isa.  xlix,  6);  "The  Gentiles  shall 
come  to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising"  (Isa. 
Ix,  3).  Yet  the  Jews,  though  elect  for  this  work,  never  met  the 
divine  expectation;  and  our  apostle  tells  us  that  "God  was  long 
minded  to  show  liis  wrath  at  their  disobedience,  and  only  with 
much  long-suffering  endured  those  Jewish  vessels  of  wrath,  fitted 
for  destruction  ;  and  endured  them,  not  for  themselves,  but  only 
that  through  them  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  gospel 
upon  the  Gentile  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  of  old  prepared  unto 
glory."  (Rom.  ix,  22.)  But  the  Jews,  forgetful  of  the  reason  of 
their  call,  and  proud  of  their  election,  came  at  last  to  count  all 
these  privileges  an  endowment  exclusively  for  themselves.  They 
considered  the  promise  to  the  fathers  an  indefeasible  right,  with 
which  all  outside  the  covenant  had  no  concern,  and  which,  once 
granted  to  themselves,  not  even  God  could  justly  wrest  away. 
(Rom.  ix,  14.)  It  was  a  covenant  which  held  good  for  all  Jews, 
however  personally  unworthy.  Every  Jew  was  to  be  saved  be- 
cause he  was  a  Jew.  None  of  any  other  nation  could  be  saved 
because  he  was  not  a  Jew.  One  of  their  own  writers  expressed 
these  views:  "O  Lord,  thou  madest  the  world  for  our  sakes ;  as  for 
the  rest  of  the  nations  born  from  Adam,  thou  hast  said  that  they 
are  nothing."  (2  Esdras  vi,  55.)  This  arrogant  failing  of  the  Jews 
never  changed.  Later  on,  when  Paul  made  his  defense  to  the 
Jews,  they  listened  until  he  announced  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles. 
"  To  the  Gentiles!  At  this  word  they  lifted  up  their  voice,  and  said, 
Away  with  such  a  fellow  from  the  earth ;  it  was  not  fit  that  he 
should  live."    (Acts  xxii,  22.) 

THE  DIVINE  PLAN  INCLUDED  THE  GENTILES. 

In  entire  accoi*d  with  the  Divine  plan  for  the  Gentile  world 
were  all  prophetic  voices  from  the  beginning  down.  Some  of 
those  older  testimonies  Paul  quotes  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  this 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

epistle;  and,  if  he  had  needed  to  re-enforce  his  argument  in  this 
direction,  he  might,  with  equal  pertinence,  have  quoted  a  large 
part  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  Whether  the  prophets  themselves, 
Jews  in  nationality  and  thought,  fully  understood  what  they  were 
saying,  with  regard  to  the  Gentile  world,  or  not,  there  is  at  least 
no  dissonance  in  the  tenor  of  their  utterances. 

And  Christ  himself,  during  all  his  ministry,  so  preached  this 
gospel  of  universal  embrace.  He  told  the  Jews:  "Other  sheep  I 
have  [the  outlying  Gentile  world]  which  are  not  of  this  Jewish  fold. 
Them  also  I  must  bring,  and  there  will  be  one  flock  and  one  shep- 
herd." (John  X,  16.)  No  single  word  of  his  declared  or  implied 
that  the  gospel  was  restricted  to  the  Jews.  He  constantly  and 
consistently  spoke  and  acted  on  the  assumption  that  mankind  are 
all  of  one.  And  his  final  word  was  to  declare  once  more  this 
truth,  once  more  in  explicit  terms  to  enforce  it  upon  the  under- 
standing and  the  conscience  of  his  disciples,  soon  to  become  his 
apostles  to  the  world:  "Go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  EVERY  creature."     (Mark  xvi,  15.) 

THE  TWELVE  DID  NOT  UNDERSTAND. 

But  the  apostles,  who  were  sent  on  this  mission  before  Paul, 
did  not  rise  to  this  lofty  conception  of  the  gospel,  as  it  reveals 
itself  in  their  own  Scriptures,  in  the  words  of  their  Master,  and  in 
Paul's  life  work  and  in  his  writings.  So  far  as  we  know,  not  one 
of  the  twelve,  until  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  ever  preached  the 
gospel  to  any  Gentile,  with  the  single  exception  of  Cornelius,  who, 
though  uncircumcised,  was  already  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  faith. 
Not  even  Peter,  to  whom  was  intrusted  this  greatest  of  all  Chris- 
tian opportunities,  learned  the  lesson  which  this  incident  at  Caes- 
area  was  designed  to  put  before  him  beyond  misunderstanding, 
the  lesson  that  the  gospel  was  intended  for  the  Gentile  world, 
equally  with  the  Jews  themselves,  and  that  they  should  call  no 
man  common  or  unclean.  But  the  apostles  and  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem  scarce  thought  of  the  case  of  Cornelius  with  any  for- 
bearance ;  and  seem  to  have  counted  it  as  exceptional,  or  at  least 
not  to  be  acted  upon  as  yet ;  and  there  they  quietly  rested.  Not 
any  more  after  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  than  before  did  they 
recognize  the  Gentiles  as  entitled  to  admission  into  fellowship 
with  the  Jews ;  and  they  did  not  seek  Gentile  proselytes  even  of 
the  type  of  Cornelius.  With  this  exception,  from  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  forty  years  later,  no  Gen- 


26  ISTRODUCTION. 

tile  was  ever  baptized  into  communion  with  Jewish  believers.  On 
the  contrary,  so  pronounced  was  the  bias  of  the  apostles  towards 
their  own  people  exclusively,  s(j  decided  was  this  aversion  towards 
the  Gentiles,  and  so  unsympathetic  was  their  attitude  towards 
Paul  himself,  and  his  Gentile  converts,  that  only  after  hesitation 
and  debate,  did  they  nominally  recognize  his  apostolate  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  concede  the  abstract  right  of  the  Gentiles  to  a  place 
in  Paul's  Churches.  After  Paul's  defense  of  himself  at  the  council 
at  Jerusalem,  and  after  conciliatory  speeches  by  Peter  and  James, 
all  that  the  council  conceded  was  to  let  the  Gentiles  severely 
alone.  And  it  was  finally  arranged  and  covenanted  between  these 
apostles  and  Paul,  as  a  modus  rivendi,  that  "James  and  Peter  and 
John,  who  thought  themselves  to  be  pillars,  should  go  to  the  cir- 
cumcision, and  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  the  uncircumcision."  (Gal. 
ii,  9.)  John  lived  long  enough  to  change  his  attitude  towards  the 
Gentiles,  and  for  the  last  thirty  years  of  his  life  was  the  bishop  of 
the  Gentile  diocese  of  Ephesus ;  and  he  is  the  only  writer  of  the 
New  Testament  wlio  speaks  of  ''the  Jews"  with  any  bitterness. 
But  Peter  and  James  seem  to  have  practically  adhered  to  this 
arrangement.  Their  subsequent  history  does  not  credit  them 
with  any  work  among  the  Gentiles ;  and  their  epistles,  addressed 
expressly  to  Jews  only,  touch  none  of  the  grave  issues  with  which 
Paul's  letters  are  weighted.  Tiiey  .speak,  in  their  epistles,  as  if 
they  knew  naught  of  the  rights  of  the  gi'eat  Gentile  world — the 
bui-den  of  Paul's  soul,  the  burden  of  his  preaching  and  writings. 
Their  epistles  ignore  the  audience  which  Paul  addressed ;  ignore, 
in  fact,  the  only  readers  that  now  read  them, — the  Gentiles. 

THE  CALL  OF  PAUL. 

Up  to  the  day  of  Peter's  unhappy  choice  of  the  Jews  as  against 
the  Gentiles,  he  had  been  incontestably  the  leader  in  the  new  dis- 
pensation. From  that  day  he  sank  out  of  sight  in  New  Testament 
history.  Another  man  took  his  primacy  in  the  Church,  as  the 
molder  of  its  policy,  the  master  mind  in  Christian  thought.  The 
once  mother  Church,  hiding  itself  from  the  world  beneath  the 
shadow  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  ceased  to  be  cosmopolitan, 
and  became  provincial,  and  tlven  disappeared  ;  but  long  before  that 
time,  the  Church  of  Christ,  the  true  mother  of  missions,  found  its 
real  home  beneath  the  humble  tent  of  the  great  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  Paul's  inauguration  to  this  work  was  announced  from 
the  moment  of  his  conversion:  "  He  is  a  chosen  vessel  to  me,  to 


INTRODUCTION..  2t 

bear  my  name  before  OentHex,  and  kings,  and  sons  of  Israel."  (Acts 
ix,  15.)  Himself  a  Jew,  a  Pharisee,  a  zealot  for  the  traditions,  a 
persecutor  of  the  believers,  he  at  once  abandoned  his  prejudices 
against  the  Gentiles,  and  accepted  the  gospel  doctrine  of  the 
common  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  equal  brotherhood  of  man.  He 
counted  his  circumcision  as  nothing ;  he  became  a  Gentile  in 
thought,  sympathies,  life  ;  he  held  all  men,  of  whatever  race,  as  his 
brethren  in  the  Lord,  and  spent  his  life  in  evangelizing  the  Gen- 
tile vporld.  He  demonstrated  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  the 
universality  of  God's  plan  of  old,  the  equal  atonement  of  Christ, 
and  the  justification  of  the  Gentiles  with  God,  not,  as  the  Jews 
boasted  for  themselves,  from  works  of  law,  but  from  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  the  saving  faith  that  antedated  the  law,  and  was 
higher  than  the  law.  He  won  for  the  Gentiles  an  equal  place  in 
the  Church  of  Christ ;  he  planted  Gentile  Churches  over  the 
Roman  world  ;  and  when  he  died,  in  A.  D.  67,  Judaism  had  ceased, 
everywhere  outside  of  Jerusalem,  to  be  an  antagonizing  and  ob- 
structive power  to  the  cause  of  the  Gentiles.  And  then,  three 
years  later,  Jerusalem  fell;  and  all  Jewish  opposition  fell  with  it; 
and  the  Pauline  gospel  of  the  Gentiles  stood  triumphant. 

PAUL'S  LETTERS. 

Paul  tells  us  of  his  labors,  his  journeyings,  his  perils  by  his 
countrymen  and  by  false  brethren,  his  persecutions,  his  distresses  ; 
and,  besides  those  things  that  are  without,  that  which  pressed 
upon  him  daily,  his  anxiety  for  all  the  Churches.  But  he  nowhere 
names  that  which  to  us  is  of  infinitely  more  moment  than  these 
personal  incidents  of  the  day, — the  letters  tchich  he  wrote  to  the 
Churches.  How  unconscious  this  much-enduring  man  of  the  rich 
literary  legacy  he  was  leaving  to  the  Church  and  the  world ! 
These  letters,  at  least  so  many  as  have  come  down  to  us,  probably 
but  a  small  part  of  the  whole  number,  are  few  and  not  long.  But 
they  have  controlled  the  thought  and  the  faith  of  the  world. 
How  different  without  them  would  dogmatic  Christianity  now  be, 
if,  indeed,  there  had  been  any  dogmatic  Christianity  without  them ! 

These  letters  are  the  outgrowth  of  Paul's  controversy  with  the 
Jews  of  the  Synagogue,  and  with  the  Judaizers  in  the  Christian 
Church.  They  are  full  of  this  issue :  some  of  them  are  restricted 
to  this  one  subject.  AVithout  keeping  this  controversy  foremost 
in  mind,  the  reader  of  these  epistles  is  sure  to  miss  the  point  of  the 
discussion   if  not  wholly  misinterpret  the  greater  part  of  what  he 


2S  ISTRODrcTTON. 

reads.  This  is  the  master-key  to  n  consistent  and  salisfaotorj' 
exegesis  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans,  tlie  Galatians,  and  the 
Kphesians;  and,  indeed,  of  the  most  of  the  Pauline  writings  and 
theology.  He  who  would  rightly  understand  these  epistles,  and 
compreliend  the  gospel  which  Paul  preached,  and  which  he  justly 
called  "  M]i  gospel  " — M'l  presentation  of  the  gospel  <jf  Christ,  as 
discriminated  from  the  gospel  of  Peter  and  James — must  recognize 
this  controversy  as  the  prominent  fact  in  his  life. 

STRUGGLE  AGAINST  JUDAISM. 

The  circumstances  in  the  early  Church  at  the  time  of  Paul's 
conversion,  and  call  to  the  apostleship  of  the  Gentiles,  were  pecul- 
iar. There  were  already  in  the  Church  "great  multitudes  of 
believers,"  and  even  "  a  great  company  of  priests  were  obedient 
to  tlie  faith,"  but  those  early  Christians,  all  Jews,  in  accepting 
Christ,  and  trusting  in  liim  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  did  not 
repudiate  their  obligation  to  the  ritual  law.  and  inconsistently, 
still  relied  on  circumcision  as  a  saving  ordinance.  And  they  still 
held,  like  all  other  Jews,  to  their  exclusive  right  to  the  covenant, 
and  still  cherished  antipathy  towai-ds  the  Gentiles.  But  Paul  was 
an  exception ;  he  espoused  the  unpopular  cause.  With  regard  to 
himself,  he  tells  us,  that,  ""When  God  was  pleased  to  reveal  his 
Son  in  me,  that  I  may  preach  him  among  the  Gentiles,  immediately 
I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood."  (Gal.  i,  16.)  He  had  no 
compromise  to  make  with  the  Jews  at  large,  none  with  the  other 
apostles,  or  with  his  fanatical  brethren,  none  even  with  himself. 
He  went  clean  over  to  Christianity.  He  burned'the  bridges  behind 
him.  To  him  the  rites  of  Moses,  the  creed  of  the  Synagogue,  lost 
their  value:  "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  avails  any- 
thing, nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  [in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ]  work- 
ing through  love."  (Gal.  v,  6.)  He  preached  the  lesson  which  he 
had  once  heard  Stephen  preach,  "That  Jesus  will  destroy  this  place, 
and  will  abolish  the  customs  which  Moses  delivered  to  us  Jews" 
(Acts  vi,  14)  ;  and  he  preached  an  open  gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 

Wherever  Paul  preached  this  gospel,  he  came  into  collision 
with  the  unbelieving  Jews.  They  sought  to  kill  liim  as  an  apostate 
from  Moses;  "  in  prisons  more  abundantly,  in  stripes  above  meas- 
ure, in  deaths  often  ;  of  the  Jews  five  times  received  I  forty  stripes 
save  one;  thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods;  once  was  I  stoned." 
(2  Cor.  li,  23.)  And  even  his  own  brethren  in  the  faith  bitterly 
opposed  his  views.     Instead  of  extending  sympathy  and  help,  they 


INTRODUCTION.  29 

followed  him  with  aversion  and  persecution ;  they  denied  his 
authority  as  an  apostle,  and  strove  to  hinder  his  special  work 
among  the  Gentiles.  Emissaries,  pretending  the  authority  of  Peter 
and  James,  taught  his  Churches,  "  Except  ye  become  circumcised 
after  the  rite  of  Moses,  ye  can  not  be  saved."  (Acts  xv,  1.)  This 
struggle  for  the  equality  of  the  Gentiles  with  the  Jews,  in  the  plan 
of  God,  was  the  one  subject  that  Paul  had  before  him  for  discussion 
in  this  epistle.  To  him,  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  no  issue 
could  be  more  important ;  and  it  was  this  that  made  this  one  phase 
of  "  his  gospel,"  strikingly  polemic,  impassioned,  and  copious. 

This  strife  which  prevailed  everywhere,  finally  culminated  at 
Antioch,  which  was  already  clearly  the  center  of  Gentile  Chris- 
tianity. The  Church  at  Antioch  appealed  to  the  Apostolic  Church 
at  Jerusalem,  for  relief  against  this  Jewish  intermeddling ;  and 
after  long  discussion,  the  council,  under  the  influence  of  Peter 
and  James,  although  themselves  conservative,  recognized  Paul's 
apostleship  to  the  Gentiles,  and  proclaimed  freedom  to  his  con- 
verts from  the  obligation  to  the  Jewish  ritual.  This  decree  was 
addressed  expressly  "  to  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles ;" 
and  it  was  not  intended  to  relieve  Jewish  believers,  even  in  Paul's 
provincial  Churches,  from  the  yoke  of  the  law.  Perhaps  Jewish 
believers  did  not  wish  the  relief;  their  deliverance  was  yet  to 
come.  But  freedom  for  the  Gentiles  was  all  that  Paul  demanded, 
or  really  expected.  Yet  the  decision,  though  unanimous,  did  not 
free  the  apostle,  or  his  Gentile  Churches,  from  the  clandestine  and 
persistent  interference  of  the  Judaistic  party  at  Jerusalem.  They 
still  attempted  to  obstruct  his  work  among  the  Gentiles,  and  to 
pervert  his  converts.  His  letter  to  the  Churches  of  Galatia,  ten 
years  later,  shows  that  this  strife  had  broken  out  afresh  there,  as, 
doubtless,  in  all  his  Churches.  The  contending  parties  in  Corinth, 
"  one  party  of  Peter,  and  one  party  of  Paul  "  (1  Cor.  i,  10-12)  were 
almost  certainly  arrayed  against  each  other  on  this  one  issue.  In 
his  other  epistles,  Paul  makes  reference,  scarcely  less  explicit,  to 
the  same  condition  of  things  in  the  several  Churches  addressed,  in 
all  of  which  were  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  To  the  Ephesians  he 
says,  "  I  beseech  you  to  walk  with  all  lowliness  and  meekness,  with 
longsuffering ,  forbearing  one  another,  giving  diligence  to  keep  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There  is  one  body  [not  two 
parties],  and  one  spirit,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  [not  cir- 
cumcision, and  ritual  observances."]  (Eph.  iv,  1-8.)  To  the  Philip- 
pians  he  says,  "  Beware  of  the  (Judaistic)  dugs,  beware  of  the  evil 


80  INTROnrCTION. 

workers,  beware  of  the  concision  ttlie  Jewish  manglers  of  tlie 
flesh],  f<ir  "•(■  [Gentilos]  are  the  circumcision."  (Phil,  iii,  3.)  To 
the  Colossians  ho  says,  "  Take  heed  lest  any  [JudaizerJ  make  Kpoil 
of  you,  through  his  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  traditions 
of  men,  and  not  after  Christ.  For  in  him  [not  in  the  rite  of  Moses], 
ye  were  circumcised,  not  with  [Jewish]  circumcision  made  with 
hands,  but  in  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  (Col.  ii,  8-11.)  How 
many  more  such  letters  he  wrote,  we  do  not  know,  but  his  mind 
was  full  of  tliis  debate.  Evidently  it  was  this  same  necessity  that 
now,  only  a  few  months  later  than  the  Epistle  to  the  (ialatians, 
impelled  him  to  write  the  sister  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Such  was 
the  occasion  for  this  epistle,  such  its  sole  aim. 

PURPOSE  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

Paul  tells  the  Romans  that  he  had  long  "purposed  in  his 
spirit  "  to  visit  Rome.  He  had  now,  in  the  year  58,  linislied  his 
Third  Missionary  Journey  ;  and  was  on  the  j)oint  of  going  to  Jeru- 
salem with  his  collections  for  the  saints,  before  his  long-hoped  for 
journey  to  Spain.  He  proposed  to  make  Rome  a  point  on  his  way 
to  this  new  field  ;  and  he  wrote  this  letter  to  announce  his  coming. 
But  while  sending  tliis  friendly  greeting,  he  also  took  occasion  to 
write  at  large  of  subjects  with  which  his  life  and  thoughts  were 
full  to  overflowing.  From  such  themes  just  at  this  period  in  his 
ministry,  he  could  not  refrain ;  and  he  knew  that  a  discussion  of 
these  subjects  would  find  an  eager  audience  in  the  Romans. 

These  subjects  were,  of  course,  what  they  would  surely  expect 
the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  to  discuss  ;  subjects  which  some  of  them, 
doubtless,  had  already  heard  him  discuss  in  his  previous  ministry, 
— the  great  question  of  the  relation  of  the  Gentiles  to  God's  plans. 
Out  of  this  long  debate  had  finally  come  to  him,  in  his  own  mind, 
a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  great  problems  of  the  gospel — the 
atonement  of  Christ,  its  range,  its  all-suflRciency  of  itself,  apart 
from  Jewish  "  works  of  law,"  its  peace  and  joy  to  the  believer,  and 
its  final  conquest  of  the  world  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  These 
views  which  overflowed  from  his  own  heart,  he  was  sure  would  find 
acceptance  with  the  Gentiles  at  Rome. 

FOUNDING  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME. 

Of  the  founding  of  the  Church  at  Rome  we  know  but  little. 
It  is  certain,  however,  that  Peter  was  not,  as  the  Catholic  Church 
claims,  the  founder,  in  any  sense,  of  the  Church  at  Rome.     We 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

know  that,  during  all  the  twenty-five  years  falsely  claimed  for  his 
episcopate  at  Rome,  he  w^as  at  Jerusalem,  or  elsewhere  in  Judea, 
at  Antioch,  and  at  Babylon.  And  if  Peter  ever  went  to  Rome,  it 
must  have  been  after  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  and  after  Paul's 
imprisonment  at  Rome  three  years  later,  and  just  before  Peter's 
own  death.  But  the  evidence  against  his  ever  having  been  at 
Rome  is  so  strong  that  Protestant  scholarship  inclines  to  deny  it 
altogether.  Nor  was  any  other  of  the  twelve  the  founder.  Paul 
always  forbore  to  build  on  another  man's  foundation ;  and  the 
Church  at  Rome  had  not  the  anti-Pauline  bent  that  any  other 
apostle  would  have  given  it.  But  it  is  certain,  too,  that  Paul 
himself  had  not  yet  set  foot]  on  Italian  soil,  and  was  not  the 
founder,  unless  in  an  indirect  way.  The  probability  is  that  the 
Christian  movement  at  Rome  was  started  years  before  this  epistle 
by  lay  converts  from  Paul's  other  Churches.  It  was  this  indirect 
Pauline  origin  that  predisposed  the  Romans  to  his  teachings,  and 
that  gave  him  the  apostolical  authority  over  them,  as  being  really 
one  of  his  own  Churches.  The  movement  was  doubtless  insignifi- 
cant at  first,  and  grew  only  by  slow  accretions  from  outside,  and 
by  new  converts  at  home.  There  is  no  mention  of  any  ecclesiastic 
organization,  or  of  Church  officers,  as  elders  or  bishops.  Yet  they 
met  together,  at  distinct  centers,  for  congregational  worship  ;  they 
had  gifts  differing  among  themselves,  according  to  the  grace  given 
them ;  and  they  must  have  had  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

MIXED  NATIONALITIES. 

But  whatever  the  origin  of  the  Church,  and  whatever  the  date 
of  its  founding,  it  was,  at  the  time  Paul  wrote  this  letter,  largely 
composed  of  Gentiles,  converts  from  Paul's  provincial  Churches 
throughout  the  Roman  world.  Paul  addresses  the  Romans  as 
Gentiles:  "  I  received  my  apostleship,  with  a  view  to  obedience  to 
the  faith,  among  all  the  Gentiles,  among  whom  are  ye  also." 
(Rom.  i,  5.)  "That  I  may  have  some  fruit  among  you  also,  as 
also  among  the  rest  of  the  Gentiles."  (Rom.  i,  13.)  This  is  con- 
firmed by  the  number  of  his  salutations  in  the  sixteenth  chapter. 
But  there  were  also  some  Jewish  members,  the  minority  of  the 
Church.  Those  may  have  come  directly  from  Jerusalem,  or  have 
been  under  indirect  influences  from  Jerusalem,  and  so  sympa- 
thized with  the  views  of  the  mother  Church ;  but  more  probably, 
like  the  Jewish  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  the  greater  number  of  these 


32  IXTRODUCTION. 

also  were  from  Paul's  Churches,  and  so  were  not  hostile  to  his 
teachings.  Yet,  naturally,  as  Jews  they  were  more  liable  than 
the  Gentile  members  to  be  intliienced  by  anti-Pauline  propngand- 
ism.  But  from  whatever  antecedents,  certainly  at  the  date  of  this 
letter  there  were  these  two  parties  at  Rome,  with  racial  prejudices 
and  divergent  views.  They  were  living  together  as  yet,  apparently 
without  blending,  yet  without  quarreling;  though  as  chapter  xiv 
shows,  not  witiiout  cliaflng  and  jealousy.  In  this  fact,  as  Paul 
felt,  lay  the  danger  of  grave  dissensions  in  the  future,  as  in  the 
Churches  of  Galatia.  Indeed  the  tenor  of  the  epistle,  as  a  whole, 
and  some  of  the  points  discussed  in  particular,  show  that  the 
great  issue  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  which  was  at  the  front 
everywhere  else  in  Paul's  Churches,  was  already  making  itself 
manifest  at  Kome.  The  variance,  however,  had  certainly  not 
reached  the  acute  stage ;  and  so  Paul  does  not  write  with  the 
vehemence  that  he  shows  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  But  the 
general  fact  that  Paul  wrote  such  a  letter  at  all  to  the  Church  at 
Rome,  on  the  relations  of  Gentiles  and  Jews,  and  the  specific  fact 
that  he  warns  the  brethren  against  the  (Judaistic)  breeders  of 
division  (chapters  xvi  and  xvii),  is  sufficient  proof  that  the  debate 
on  the  ritual  observance  of  the  law,  which  was  agitated  elsewhere 
in  Paul's  Churches,  was  beginning  to  be  agitated,  though  less 
accentuated,  at  Rome  also.  Such  was  the  occasion  for  this  great 
letter.  He  wrote  it  that,  by  his  apostolic  authority  and  argument 
with  men  who  had  been  converted  under  his  preaching,  he  might 
decide  this  debate  before  it  became  embittered  and  rent  the 
Church. 

GOD'S  GOVERNMENT  AMONG  THE  NATIONS. 

Over  against  the  cherished  views  which  Paul  wished  to  pre- 
sent, he  needed  to  combat  and  refute  the  concept  of  the  Jews  in 
regai'd  to  the  character  and  method  of  God's  government  among 
men.  He  needed  to  show  that  the  Jews,  who  assumed  that  they 
alone  were  God's  elect,  and  that  the  divine  plan  did  not  contem- 
plate or  include  the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles,  misunderstood 
God's  plans,  and  misconceived  of  his  sovereign  government  in 
human  affairs. 

To  enter  into  the  apostle's  argument  in  this  epistle,  and  es- 
pecially in  the  long  passage  embracing  the  ninth,  tenth,  and 
eleventh  chapters,  \*e  must  recognize  the  fact  tliat  he  clearly 
discriminates  between  two  things  that  are  essentially  different, 


INTRODUCTIOX.  33 

but  which  the  Jews  always,  and  many  loose  thinkers  in  modern 
times,  identified — God's  government  in  the  realm  of  providence 
and  his  government  in  the  realm  of  spirit.  God's  government  of 
the  outward  world  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  his  providence.  In 
this  God  is  absolutely  sovereign;  that  is,  he  decrees  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass,  as  the  result  of  his  administration.  In  this  provi- 
dential administration  of  the  world,  he  does  as  he  will  with  men. 
He  not  only  creates  men  and  keeps  them  in  being,  but  he  assigns 
the  historic  places  of  man  and  of  nations  in  the  world ;  he  pro- 
motes whom  he  will,  yet  always  for  cause,  and  not  from  caprice. 
And  all  these  secular  assignments  are  subject  to  change,  and 
recall,  and  revisal,  for  cause ;  and  always  justly.  Such  are  the 
principles  of  God's  providential  administration,  which  Paul  ap- 
plies to  the  case  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  Gentiles.  God  dealt  with 
the  Jews  as  also  with  the  Gentiles,  racially,  en  masse;  and  there- 
fore in  the  line  of  his  providential  government.  God  elected  and 
called  the  Jews  en  masse  to  the  privileges  and  oppoi'tunities  of 
the  theocratic  kingdom  and  Church,  that  they  might  serve  his 
purposes  in  the  world.  But  they  disappointed  him ;  and  he  after- 
wards displaced  them,  and  extended  the  same  gracious  election 
and  call  to  the  Gentile  world  fn  masse. 

But  there  is  another  department  of  God's  government:  the 
sphere  of  his  grace,  or  spiritual  administration.  In  this  second 
and  higher  department  of  God's  action,  he  does  not  deal  with  men 
racially,  en  masse,  but  individually .  Herein  he  makes  no  sover- 
eign, tliat  is,  arbitrary,  discrimination  between  the  races  of  man- 
kind, as  the  Jews  thought,  or  between  individuals  of  the  races, 
severally,  as  Calvinists  think.  To  him  all  men  are  alike ;  and  his 
provisions  for  the  salvation  of  all  men  are  uniform,  constant,  the 
same  for  all,  Jew  and  Gentile.  His  administration  here  moves  on 
spiritual  lines,  and  not  on  physical  lines.  In  this  moral,  spiritual 
sphere  God  as  a  legislator  prescribes  (that  is,  enjoins,  commands) 
the  actions  of  men,  as  in  the  sphei'e  of  providence;  but  he  does 
not  exercise  the  control  of  a  sovereign  to  enforce  his  will ;  he  does 
not  decree  the  actions  of  men.  In  this  spiritual  kingdom,  man  is 
the  subject,  not  of  physical  government,  but  of  moi-al  government ; 
free,  independent,  possessing  the  power  of  alternate  choice  and 
action. 

If,  as  the  Jews  and  Calvinists  hold,  God  has  decreed  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass  in  the  spiritual  realm,  as  he  has  done  in  the  realm 
of  providence,  man  has  no  ethical  character,  is  incapable  of  self- 
3 


34  INTRODUCTION. 

determination,  is  not  an  amenable  agent,  j«  a  marhiiie.  And  it  is 
of  God's  providetttial  government  in  his  dealings  with  the  Jews  and 
with  the  Gentiles,  and  of  this  only,  that  Paul  speaks  in  this  epistle. 
In  regard  to  God's  administration  of  tlie  sj)iritual  kingdom,  and 
of  its  issues  in  the  world  to  come,  the  apostle  in  this  epistle  makes 
no  affirmation. 

CLAIM  OF  THE  JEWS  UNSCRIPTURAL. 

The  law  of  Moses  yielded  no  encouragement  to  the  narrow, 
exclusive  feeling  of  the  Jews.  But  by  long  prescription,  certain 
traditions  and  opinions  of  the  fathers,  dishonoring  to  God,  and 
dislionoring  to  man,  the  creature  of  God,  had  become  estab- 
lished, with  all  the  force  of  Scripture,  as  the  creed  of  the 
synagogue.  Those  unscriptural  and  anti-scriptural  sentiments 
and  beliefs  of  the  Jews  with  regai'd  to  themselves  on  the  one 
hand,  and  with  regard  to  the  Gentiles  on  the  other,  formed  the 
great  obstacle  to  Paul's  work,  whether  among  Jews  or  among 
Gentiles.  But  this  old  Jewish  obstacle  no  longer  troubles  the 
Church  of  Christ.  To  us,  in  these  days  of  Christian  light,  the 
question  that  was  in  issue  between  Paul  and  the  synagogue,  the 
question  whether  God  cared  spiritually  for  the  Jews  only  ;  or  also, 
and  equally,  for  the  Gentile  world  at  large,  has  little  personal 
concern.  We  are  not  agitated  or  disturbed  by  it  as  was  the 
Church  in  the  days  of  Paul.  The  question  was  answered  long 
centuries  ago;  and  thanks  to  this  epistle  mainly,  so  completely 
and  finally  answered,  that  most  readers  of  Paul's  epistles  now, 
overwhelmingly  Gentiles  by  birth,  do  not,  in  their  vague  appre- 
hension of  the  apostle's  meaning,  at  all  suspect  that  it  was  once 
a  question  of  vital  and  bitterest  debate  in  the  synagogue,  and  even 
in  the  Church  of  Christ  (as  yet  wholly  Jewish),  whether  Gentiles 
could  be  saved  at  all ;  and  they  do  not  realize  that  this  is,  in  fact, 
the  great  question  discussed  in  the  epistle.  That  debate  has  been 
retired.  The  old  Jewish  heresy  is  dead.  All  Gentiles  belong  to 
Christ ;  all  can  be  saved.  Such  is  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment; such  is  the  teaching  of  this  epistle. 

CALVINISM  VERSUS  PAULINISM. 

But  Augustine,  and  after  him  Calvin,  not  seeing  the  point  of 
Paul's  discussion,  interpreted  his  language,  spoken  of  God's  admin- 
istration of  the  kingdom  of  his  providence,  as  if  it  were  spoken  of 
the  kingdom  of  his  grace ;  or  rather,  they  did  not  recognize  that 


INTRODUCTION.  35 

God  had  these  two  separate  spheres  of  administration.  They  as- 
sumed that  because  God  is  sovereign,  that  is,  exercises  absolute 
physical  control  in  the  world  of  providence,  he  is  sovereign  in  the 
same  sense  in  the  world  of  grace;  and  they  thus  confound  the  two 
spheres  of  his  dealing  with  men.  Such  is  the  grave  mistake  that 
underlies  the  whole  system  of  Calvinism.*  The  doctrine  which 
Calvinism  sets  forth  as  the  Pauline  scheme  of  the  gospel  is  intrin- 
sically as  inequitable  and  as  unscriptural  as  that  of  the  synagogue, 
and  far  more  preposterous.  The  synagogue  drew  the  line  between 
the  races  very  definitely,  if  very  intolerantly.  According  to  the 
teaching  of  the  synagogue,  God  arbitrarily  elected  the  Jews  to 
eternal  life  en  masse,  and  arbitrarily  rejected  the  Gentiles  en 
masse.  This  discrimination  en  masse  is  physical,  and  belongs  to 
the  sphere  of  God's  providence,  and  not  to  the  spiritual  sphere  of 
his  grace.  But  while  it  is  not  defensible  ethically,  it  is  simply, 
definitive,  and  easily  comprehended.  But  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  Calvinism,  God  capriciously  elected  and  predestinated  par- 
ticular individuals  from  all  races  to  eternal  life,  and  rejected  the 
rest  of  mankind,  and  foreordained  them  to  eternal  damnation. 
This  discrimination,  too,  is  physical,  not  ethical  or  spiritual.  It 
is  as  indefensible  as  that  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  is 
more  incomprehensible.  The  old  Jewish  conceit  of  God's  govern- 
ment counted  the  parties  in  interest  as  all  Jews  versus  all  Gentiles; 
the  later  Calvinistic  conceit  counted  them  as  certain  elect  individ- 
uals VERSUS  innum.erable  reprobates. 

THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION. 

This  is  the  view  which  Augustine  first,  and  Calvin  after  him, 
essayed  to  impose  upon  the  Church  of  Christ  instead  of  the  Paul- 
ine teaching  in  this  epistle.  This  view  the  Westminster  Assembly 
of  Christian  divines  embodied,  in  1645,  in  certain  famous  proposi- 
tions, as  execrable  as  can  be  conceived  by  the  human  mind. 
These  propositions  are  logical  inferences  from  the  unscriptural 
doctrine  of  sovereign  decrees,  by  which  Calvinism  affirms  that 
God  of  old  ordained  the  spiritual  destiny  of  man.    This  belief  leads 


*Thus  Dr.  Hodge  says:  "It  is  undeniable  that  In  Ms  providence 
God  acts  as  a  sovereign.  Augustinlanlsm  [that  Is  to  say,  Calvinism]  ac- 
cords with  these  facts  of  providence;  and  therefore  must  be  true[l].  It 
only  [only!]  assumes  that  God  acts  in  the  dispensation  of  his  grace  pre- 
cisely as  he  acts  In  the  dispensation  of  his  other  tavora."— Theology,  II,  3S8. 


3(1  IXTRODUCTIOX. 

to  so  monstrous  conclusions  that  even  ('nlvin  culled  this  system  of 
decrees  "  horrible."* 

Some  of  those  dreadful  propositions  are  as  follows: 

"  III.  By  the  decree  of  Gt>d,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  [the  synagogue  would  liave  said  all  the  Jivk]  are  pre- 
destinated unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  [again  the  synagogue 
would  have  said  nil  the  (iintiltK]  are  foreordained  to  everlasting 
death." 

"V.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life.  God, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  according  to  his  eternal  and 
immutable  purpose,  hath  chosen  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of 
his  mere  grace,  without  anything  in  the  creature  moving  him 
thereto,  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace. 

"  VI.  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually 
called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only. 

"  VII.  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  for  the  glory  of 
his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain 
them  to  dishonor  and  wi-ath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his  glori- 
ous justice." — Westminster  Confession,  chapter  iii. 

This  doctrine  of  God's  eternal  decrees  is  unscriptural,  uneth- 
ical, unthinkable,  untrue.  It  is  an  excrescence  that  mars  an 
otherwise  Christian  creed.  Calvinism  is  not  germane  to  the  Con- 
fession, and  is  not  essential  to  its  integrity.  The  rest  of  the  Con- 
fession is,  on  the  whole,  evangelical,  and  (with  the  exception  of 
a  few  dead  flies  in  the  ointment)  is  acceptable  to  all  Christian 
Churches. 

"  ELECTION." 

The  question  whether  certain,  particular  men,  throughout  the 
world,  are,  by  God's  eternal  decree,  elect,  favorites  of  heaven, 
and  predestinated  to  eternal  salvation  ;  and  all  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, by  the  same  decree,  reprobates,  under  heaven's  ban  and 


*"  I  again  ask  bow  is  it  that  the  fall  of  Adam  involved  so  many  na- 
tions. ^or/^^/iT  ivith  thrii-  infant  children, in  eternal  death  without  remedy, 
unless  that  It  so  seemed  meet  to  God.  .  .  .  Here  the  most  flippant  tongues 
must  be  silent.  The  decree,  I  admit.  Is  dreadful  [decrelum  horribile  fateor'] ; 
but  yet  It  Is  impossible  to  deny  that  God  foreknew  what  the  end  of  man 
was  to  be  before  he  made  him,  and  foreknew  It  because  he  had  so  foreor- 
dained It  by  his  decrees.  The  first  man  fell  because  the  Lord  deemed  It 
meet  that  he  should.  Why  he  deemed  It  meet  we  know  not."— Calvin's  In- 
ttitules,  111,  xxlil.~.  Calvin  might  have  quoted  his  classic  Juvenal:  "Hoc 
volo,  Rli:  }Uln:u,  sit  pro  ratione  vol unla-1."    Bat.  vl,  222. 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

foreordained  to  eternal  diunnation,  is  a  question  not  agitated  in 
this  epistle  (or  anywhere  else  in  the  Scriptures)  ;  but  emerges 
now  in  the  Calvinistic  misinterpretation  of  Paul's  words  and 
meaning.  It  is  a  question  that  was  never  conceived  of  by  Paul 
himself,  or  by  his  Jewish  antagonists,  or  even  heard  of  by  the 
Church  for  three  centuries  after  the  apostle's  death.  This  is  the 
grave  question  which  Augustine  and  Calvin  thrust  upon  the 
Church  as  the  matter  in  issue  in  this  epistle.  Are,  as  those  ven- 
erable D'/Ctors  taught,  some  individuals  only  of  the  race  the  so- 
called  ■'■  elect,"  taken  capriciously  out  of  the  mass  of  mankind  at 
large,  embraced  in  the  provisions  of  the  gospel?  and  are  all  the 
rest  of  the  race,  the  so-called  "  reprobates,"  indiscriminately  left 
outside  of  the  "covenant  of  grace?"  Or  on  the  contrary,  are,  as 
Paul  teaches,  all  of  the  race  of  Adam  equally  and  fully  redeemed, 
and  equally  elect  and  called  to  the  privileges  of  the  gospel,  equally 
salvable  on  equal  and  equitable  conditions? 

Undoubtedly  the  Scripture  speaks  of  an  "election"  as  a  fea- 
ture of  God's  plan ;  and  both  the  Jews  and  Paul  recognized  the 
election ;  but  certainly  not  in  the  same  sense.  The  Jews  claimed 
that  they  were  themselves  tlie  elect  nation,  apart  from  all  other 
men,  chosen  of  God  and  called  to  a  sijecial  and  exclusive  standing 
with  God.  In  claiming  this  election  they  held  that  it  was  in  the 
realm  of  God's  grace,  as  well  as  in  the  realm  of  his  providence ; 
and  that  it  gave  them,  not  only  an  absolute  right  to  God's  favor  in 
this  world,  but  an  absolute  decree  to  eternal  life  in  the  w^orld  to 
come ;  and  that  it  took  in  all  of  themselves  en  masse,  but  them- 
selves only.  On  the  other  hand,  Paul  held  that  this  election  in 
God's  plans  was  within  his  secular  providence,  that  it  was  an 
election  to  religious  privileges  and  opportunities,  and  to  nothing 
else ;  and  that  it  took  in  all  the  w'orld  at  large  en  masse.  Thus 
both  the  Jews  and  Paul  held  the  election,  each  in  his  own  sense  of 
the  word,  to  be  racial,  or  national,  en  masse;  but  neither  the  Jews 
nor  Paul,  neither  the  synagogue  nor  the  Church  of  Christ,  ever 
heard  of  an  arbitrary,  particular,  election  and  predestination, 
such  as  Calvinism  teaches,  of  some  individuals  as  against  other 
individuals,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile.  The  mooting  of  such  a  par- 
ticular election  of  some  men  and  preterition  of  all  the  rest,  would 
have  astounded  both  the  synagogue  and  the  Church,  and  would 
have  been  received  by  both  parties  with  indignant  protest  for  its 
unscripturalness,  if  not  with  inextinguishable  laughter  for  its 
absurdity. 


38  INTRODUCTION. 

Tlie  Jews  once  tillinl  tlie  ecclesiastical  lu-nvt'iis  with  their 
clamor  against  tlie  Gentiles.  Paul  in  this  epistle  exploded  their 
conceit  and  exclusiveness ;  and  Judaism  is  now  only  a  dead  issue. 
And  Calvinism  once  arrogated  to  itself  that  it  was  the  gospel 
scheme;  and  its  awful  shadow  long  rested  on  this  epistle,  though 
it  was  never  w^idely  accepted  in  the  Christian  Cliurcli.  This  con- 
ceit and  arrogance  Paul  has  exploded  equally  with  the  Jewish 
heresy;  and  it  too  is  now  drawing  near  its  end.  Its  own  friends, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  belated  doctrinaii-es,  have  abandoned 
it  piecemeal,  and  now  only  contend  for  the  name,  "  to  save  their 
face."  Oppressed  by  the  burden  which  they  can  not  carry,  and 
yet  hardly  know  how  to  throw  off,  their  last  anxiety  is,  "Who 
shall  deliver  us  from  this  body  of  death  ?"  In  the  coming  cen- 
turies, the  heresy  of  Hippo  and  Geneva,  like  the  heresy  of  the 
synagogue,  will  be  merely  a  hateful  memory  of  the  past. 


ROMANS. 


I.         Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  a  called  apostle,  set  apart 

2  unto  the  gospel  of  God,      which  he  promised  of  old,  through  his 

3  prophets,  in  Holy  Scriptures,      concerning  his  Son,      who  was 

4  born  from  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  who  was 
marked  out  Son  of  God  in  power,  according  to  [his]  spirit  of 
holiness,   from   resurrection  of  dead  men,      Jesus  Christ  our 

5  Lord  ;  through  whom  we  received  grace  and  apostleship,  with 
a  view  to  obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  the  Gentiles,  for  his 

6  name's  sake:  among  whom  are  also  ye,  Jesus  Christ's  called: 

7  to  all  that  are  in  Rome,  God's  beloved,  called,  saints:  Grace  to 
you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

8  First,  indeed,  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  you 

9  all;  because  your  faith  is  reported  in  the  whole  world.  For  God 
is  my  witness,  whom  1  serve  in  my  spirit  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son, 
how  unceasingly  I  make  mention  of  you  ;  always  in  my  prayers 

10  making  request,  if  somehow,  now,  at  length  I  shall  be  brought 

11  on  my  way  in  the  will  of  God,  to  come  unto  you.  For  I  long  to 
see  you,  that  I  may  impart  to  you  some  spiritual  gift,  with  a 

12  view  to  your  being  established  ;  but  that  is,  to  my  being  com- 
forted with  you,  while  among  you,  through  our  faith,  both 

13  yours  and  mine,  in  each  other.  But  I  would  not  that  you  be 
ignorant,  brethren,  that  ofttimes  I  proposed  to  come  unto  you 
(and  was  hindered  hitherto),  that  I  may  have  soine  fruit 
among  you  also,  even  as  also  among  the  rest  of  the  Gentiles. 

14  I  am  debtor  both  to  Greeks  and   to  Barbarians,  both  to  wise 

15  men  and  to  ignorant.   Thus,  as  for  me,  I  would  fain  preach  the 

16  gospel  to  you  also  that  are  in  Rome.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of 
the  gospel:  for  it  is  God's  power  unto  salvation  to  every  one 

17  that  has  faith ;  both  to  Jew,  first,  and  to  Greek.  For  in  it  is 
revealed  God's  plan  of  justification  from  faith,  with  a  view  to 
faith :  as  it  has  been  written,  "  But  the  just  from  faith  will  live." 

39 


40  ROMAXS.  I.  18—11.  3. 

18  For  God's  wrath  is  revt-alcd  from  heaven  against  all  impiety 
and  unrighteousness  of  men,  wlio  liinder  the  truth  in  unright- 

19  eousness.     Because  so  much  of  God  as  is  known  is  manifest  in 

20  them;  for  God  manifested  it  to  tiiem.  For  liis  unseen  attri- 
butes, both  his  eternal  power  and  divinity,  since  tlie  creation 
of  the  world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  his  works; 

L'i  so  that  they  are  without  excuse.  Because,  having  come  to 
know  God,  they  did  not  glorify  him  as  God,  or  thank  him  ;  nay, 
but  they  became  vain  in  their  reasonings,  and  their  foolish 

22  heart  was  darkened.     Declaring  themselves  to  be  wise  men, 

23  they  became  fools ;  and  they  exchanged  the  glory  of  the  incor- 
ruptible God  for  sameness  of  image  with  corruptible  man,  and 
bii^ds,  and  fourfooted  beasts,  and  creeping  things. 

24  Wherefore  God  gave  them  up,  in  tiie  lusts  of  their  hearts, 
unto  uncleanness,  so  that  their  bodies  were  dishonored  among 

25  them  ;  in  tliat  they  exchanged  the  truth  of  God  for  the  lie  ;  and 
they  reverenced  and  served  the  creature,  rather  than  him 
who  created  it ;  who  is  blessed  forever.    Amen. 

26  On  account  of  this,  God  gave  them  up  unto  infamous  pas- 
sions: for  both  tlieir  females  changed  the  natural  use  into  that 

27  which  is  against  nature:  and  in  like  manner  also  the  males, 
having  left  the  natural  use  of  the  female,  burned  in  their  lust 
towai"ds  one  anotlier,  males  with  males  working  the  indecency, 
and  receiving  in  themselves  the  recompense  of  their  error 
which  was  due. 

28  And  according  as  they  did  not  approve  to  have  God  in  rec- 
ognition, God  gave  them  over  unto  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do 

29  the  things  not  becoming;  having  been  filled  with  all  unright- 
eousness, wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness  ;  full  of  envy, 

30  murder,  strife,  deceit,  malignity  ;  wliisperers,  slanderers,  hate- 
ful towards  God,  insolent,  haughty,  boastful ;  inventors  of  evil 

31  things,  disobedient  to  parents,  without  understanding,  cove- 

32  nant-breakers,  without  natural  affection,  unmerciful:  who, 
having  come  to  know  the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  that 
practice  such  things  are  worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  them, 
nay,  but  also  are  well  pleased  with  them  that  practice  them. 

II.  Wherefore  thou  art  without  excuse,  O  every  man,  that 
judgest:  for  in  what  thing  thou  judgest  tlie  other,  thou  con- 
demnest  thyself ;  for  tliou  that  judgest  liim  practicest  the  same 

2  things.     But  we  know  tlnat  tlie  judgment  of  God  is  according 

3  to  truth  upon  them  that  practice  such  things.     But  reckonest 


II.  4-26.  ROifANS.  .  41 

thou  this,  O  man,  that  judgest  them  that  practice  such  things, 
and  doest  them,  that  thou  wilt  escape  the  judgment  of  God? 

4  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance 
and  longsuffering,  ignoring  that   the   goodness  of  God  leads 

5  thee  to  repentance?  But  according  to  thy  hardness  and  im- 
penitent heart,  thou  ti'easurest  up  to  thyself  wrath  in  the  day 
of   wrath   and  of  revelation  of  the  just  judgment   of  God ; 

6  "Who    will   render    to   each    man    according  to  his  works:" 

7  to  them  indeed  that  by  patience  in  good  work  seek  for  glory 

8  and  honor,  and  incorruption,  life  eternal :  but  to  them  that 
are  factious,  and  are  disobedient,  indeed,  to  the  truth,  but 
obedient  to  unrighteousness,  will  be  wrath  and  indignation, 

9  affliction    and   anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man   who  works 

10  evil,  both  of  Jew,  first,  and  of  Greek ;  but  glory  and  honor 
and  peace  to  every  man  who  works  good,  both  to  Jew,  first, 

11  and  to  Greek:   for  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God. 

12  For  as  many  as  sinned  without  law,  without  law  will  also 
perish:  and  as  many  as  sinned  within  law,  through  law  will 

13  be  judged ;  for  not  the  hearers  of  law  are  just  with  God,  but 

14  the  doers  of  law  will  be  justified:  for  whenever  Gentiles  who 
have  no  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  Law,  these,  having 

15  no  law,  are  law  to  themselves :  in  that  they  show  the  work  of 
the  Law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  consciousness  testifying 
with  them,  and  their  thoughts,  one  with  another,  accusing,  or 

16  else  acquitting  them:  in  the  day  when  God  will  judge  the 
secrets  of  men,  according  to  my  gospel,  through  Jesus  Christ. 

17  But  if  thou  art  named  "Jew,"  and  restest  upon  law,  and 

18  boastest   in  God,    and  knowest  his  will,   and   approvest  the 

19  things  that  excel,  being  instructed  out  of  the  Law,  and  trusted 
as  to  thyself  that  thou  art  a  guide  of  blind  men,  a  light  of  them 

20  that  are  in  darkness,  an  instructor  of  foolish  men,  a  teacher 
of  babes,  having  in  the  Law  the  form  of  the  knowledge  and  of 

21  the  truth — dost  thou  therefore  that  teachest  another,  not 
teach  thyself?  dost  thou  that  preachest  not  to  steal,   steal? 

22  dost  thou  that  sayest  not  to  commit  adultery,  commit  adultery? 

23  dost  thou  that  abominatest  idols,  pillage  [their]  temples?  Thou 
that  boastest  in  law,  through  the  transgression  of  the  Law  dis- 

24  honorest  God ;  "  for  the  name  of  God  on  account  of  you  is 
blasphemed    among   the   Gentiles,"  according  as  it  has  been 

25  written.  For  circumcision  indeed  profits,  if  thou  be  a  practicer 
of  law  ;  but  if  thou  be  a  transgressor  of  law.  thy  circumcision 


42  ROMANS.  II.  26— Til.  14. 

26  has  become  uncircumcision.  If,  tluM-efore,  the  Uncircumciaion 
guai*d   the  roquirements  of  the  Law,   will  not  his  uncircum- 

27  cision  be  reckoned  unto  circumcision?  and  the  Uncircumcision 
wliich  is  from  nature,  if  it  fulfills  the  Law,  will  judge  thee, 
who  through  letter  and  circumcision  art  transgressor  of  law. 

28  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  one  outwardly ;  nor  yet  is  that  cir- 

29  cumcision,  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh:  nay,  but  he  is  a. Tew, 
who  is  one  inwardly;  and  circumcision  is  of  heart,  in  spirit, 
not  in  letter;  of  whom  the  praise  is  not  from  men,  nay,  but 
from  God. 

III.  Jew.  What  then  is  the  superiority  of  the  Jew  [over  the 
Gentile?)  or  what  is  the  profit  of  circumcision? 

2  P.\ui..  Much  in  every  way:  first,  indeed,  because  they  were 
intrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God. 

3  Jew.  For,  what?  If  some  [of  us]  did  not  have  faith,  will 
their  unfaith  annul  the  faithfulness  of  God? 

4  Paul.  God  forbid :  but  let  God  be  found  true,  but  every 
man  a  liar;  as  it  has  been  written. 

That  thou  mayest  bi'  justified  in  tliy  words. 

And  mayest  be  victor  when  thou  comest  to  be  judged. 

5  Jew.  But  if  our  non-justification  establishes  God's  plan  of 
justification,  what  shall  we  say?  Is  God  unjust? — who  brings 
wrath  upon  us?     (I  speak  after  the  usages  of  men.) 

6  Paul.     God  forbid:  since  how  will  God   judge  the   world? 

7  Jew.  But  if  the  trueness  of  God  in  my  falseness  abounded 
unto  his  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  condemned  as  sinful? 

8  Paul.  And  [shall  we  sayl,  as  we  are  calumniated,  and  as 
some  aflRrm  that  we  say.  Let  us  do  the  evil  things,  that  the  good 
may  come?  whose  condemnation  is  just. 

9  Jew.     "What,  then?  are  we  worse  [than  the  Gentiles?] 
Paul.     Not  at  all:  for  we  before  denounced  both  Jews  and 

10  Greeks,  that  they  all  are  under  sin;  as  it  has  been  written. 

There  is  none  just,  not  even  one ; 

11  There  is  none  that  understands, 
There  is  none  that  seeks  out  God ; 

12  They  all  turned  aside,  together  they  became  unprofitable ; 
There  is  none  that  does  good  ;  there  is  not  so  much  as  one: 

13  An  opened  grave  is  their  thi'oat ; 
With  their  tongues  they  used  deceit : 
Venom  of  asps  is  under  their  lips: 

14  Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness: 


III.  15— IV.  5.  ROMANS.  43 

15  Swift  are  their  feet  to  shed  blood  ; 

16  Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ; 

17  And  the  way  of  peace  they  knew  not : 

18  There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes. 

19  But  we  know  that  whatever  things  the  Law  says,  it  speaks  to 
them  [the  Jews]  that  are  under  the  Law ;  that  every  mouth 
may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  become  under  judg- 

20  ment  to  God:  because  from  works  of  law  will  no  flesh  be  jus- 
tified before  him:  for  through  law  comes  recognition  of  sin. 

21  But  now,  apart  from  law,  God's  plan  of  justification  has 
been     manifested,    being    attested    by    the    Law    and    the 

22  Prophets;  God's  plan  of  justification  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ  unto  all  them  that  have  faith  ;  for  there  is  no  distinc- 

23  tion  [between  Jew  and  Gentile] ;   for  all   sinned,   and  come 

24  short  of  the  approval  of  God ;  becoming  justified  gratis  by  his 

25  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus:  whom 
God  set  forth  a  propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,  unto 
manifestation  of  his  plan  of  justification,  on  account  of  the 

26  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  before,  in  the  forbearance  of 
God ;  unto  the  manifestation  of  his  plan  of  justification  in  the 
present  season :  that  he  may  be  just,  and  justifying  him  that  is 
of  faith  in  Jesus. 

27  Jew.    Where  then  is  our  boasting? 
Paul.    It  was  excluded. 

Jew.     Through  what  kind  of  law?  of  the  works? 

28  Paul.    No:  but  through  law  of  faith.     For  we  reckon  that 

29  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  works  of  law.     Or  is  God 

30  God  of  Jews  only?  is  he  not  God  of  Gentiles  also?  Yes,  of 
Gentiles  also:  if,  in  fact,  God  is  one  [and  not  many];  who 
will  justify  circumcision  from  faith,  and  uncireumcision 
through  the  faith. 

31  Jew.     As  for  law,  then,  do  we  abrogate  it  through  the  faith? 
Paul.     God  forbid:  nay,  but  we  establish  law. 

IV.  Jew.  What  then  shall  we  say  that  Abraham,  our  forefather, 
has  found  according  to  flesh? 

2  Paul.  [Nothing  at  all ;]  for  if  Abraham  was  justified  from 
works,  he  has  a  ground  of  boasting ;  nay,  but  [he  has  no  ground 

3  of  boasting]  towards  God.  For  what  says  the  Scripture?  "  But 
Abraham  had  faith  in  God,  and  it  was  reckoned  to  him  unto 

4  justification."    (Gen.  xv,  6.)    But  to  him  that  works,  the  reward 

5  is  not  reckoned  as  a  matter  of  grace,  but  as  a  matter  of  debt. 


44  ROMAXS.  IV.  6-2(1. 

liiit  tohiin  that  works  iiut,  but  has  faitli  on  liiin  I  hut  justilies  tin.' 
8    ungodly  man,  his  faith  is  reckoned  unto  justification  ;  accoi-d- 
ing  as  also  David  tells  the  happiness  of  the  man,  to  whom  God 
reckons  justification,  apart  from  works: 

7  Happy  they  whose  inicjuities  were  forgiven. 
And  whose  sins  were  covered  ; 

8  Happy  the  man   to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin ! 
(Psa.  xxxii,  1,  2.) 

9  Comes  this  happiness,  then,  upon  the  circumcision?  or  also 
upon  the  uncircumcision?  [Upon  the  Uncircumcision,  also]; 
for  we   say  that,  To  Abraham   his  faith  was  reckoned  unto 

10  justification.  How  then  was  it  reckoned  to  him?  Being 
in    circumcision?    or   in    uncircumcision?      Not    in    circum- 

11  cision ;  nay,  but  in  uncircumcision:  and  he  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  justification  of  the  faith 
which  was  his  in  his  uncircumcision:  with  a  view  to  his 
being  father  of  all  them  that  have  faith,  while  in  uncir- 
cumcision, that  the  justification  may  be  reckoned    to    them; 

12  and  father  of  circumcision  to  tlie  men  that  are  not  from 
circumcision  only,  but  also  to  the  men  that  march  in 
the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  while  he  was 

13  in  uncircumcision.  For  not  through  law  was  the  promise  to 
Abraham  or  to  his  seed,  that  he  should  be  heir  of  the  world  ; 

14  but  through  justification  of  faith.  For  if  they  that  are  from 
law  are  heirs,  the  faith  has  been  made  void,  and  the  promise 

15  has  been  annulled :  for  the  Law  works  wrath  ;  but  where  there 

16  is  no  law,  neither  is  there  transgression.  On  account  of  this, 
[justification]  comes  from  faitli,  that  it  may  be  accoi*ding  to 
grace ;  to  the  end  that  the  promise  may  be  sure  to  all  the 
seed  ;  not  to  that  which  is  from  the  Law,  only,  but  also  to  that 
which  is  from  the  faith  of  Abraliam ;  who  is  father  of  us  all ; 

17  according  as  it  has  been  written.  Because  father  of  many 
nations  [Gentiles]  have  I  made  thee  (Gen.  xvii,  5)  ;  before  him 
in  wliom  he  had  faith,  God,  who  makes  the  dead  alive  and 

18  calls  the  things  not  in  being,  as  though  in  being.  Who,  against 
hope,  uptm  hope  had  faith,  to  the  end  tiiat  he  should  become 
father  of  many  nations  [Gentiles],  according  to  that  which  had 

19  been  spoken.  Thus  will  thy  seed  be.  (Gen.  xv,  5.)  And  not 
having  been  weakened  in  faith,  he  considered  his  own  body, 
already  deadened,  being  about  a  hundred  years  old,  and  the 

20  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb:  but  in  respect  to  the  promise  of 


IV.  21— V.  16.  ROMANS.  45 

God,    he    doubted    not    through    unfaith ;    nay,   but  he  was 

21  strengthened  by  his  faith,  having  given  glory  to  God,  and  hav- 
ing been  fully  assured  that,  what  he  lias  promised,  he  is  able 

22  also  to  do.     Wherefore  also  it  [faith]  was  reckoned  to  him 

23  unto  justification.     But  it  was  not  written  on  account  of  him 

24  alone,  that  it  was  reckoned  to  him  ;  nay,  but  on  account  of  us 
also,  to  whom  it  is  going  to  be  reckoned,  who  have  faith  on 

25  him  that  raised  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead ;  who  was 
delivered  up  on  account  of  our  trespasses,  and  was  raised  on 
account  of  his  having  justified  us. 

V.  Having  been  justified,  therefoi'e,  from  faith,  we  have  peace 

2  towards  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  through  whom 
also  we  have  had  the  introduction,  by  faith,  into  this  grace 
in  which  we  stand ;  and  we  boast  upon  hope  of  the  glory  of 

3  God.     But   not  tliat  only,   nay,    but    we    also  boast  in   our 

4  afflictions:    knowing   that   the   affliction  works  patience;  but 

5  the  patience,  approval;  but  the  approval,  hope:  but  the  hope 
shames  us  not ;  because  the  love  of  God  has  been  poured  out 
in  our  hearts,   through  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  given  us. 

6  For  while  we  were  yet  weak,   in  due  season  Christ  died  for 

7  ungodly  men.     For  scai'cely  for  a  just  man  will  one  die:  for 

8  for  the  good  man  perhaps  one  even  dares  to  die.  But  God 
confirms  his  own  love  towards  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet 

9  sinful,  Christ  died  for  us.  Much  rather  then,  having  now  been 
justified  in  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  through  him  from  the 

10  wrath.  For  if,  being  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God 
through  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  rather  having  been  recon- 

11  ciled,  we  shall  be  saved  in  his  life  ;  but  not  that  only,  nay,  but 
we  also  boast  in  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through 
whom,  now,  we  received  the  i-econciliation. 

12  On  this  account,  just  as  through  one  man  the  sin  came  into  the 
world,  and  through  the  sin  the  death ;  even  so  the  death  came 

13  throughout  unto  all  men,  on  the  ground  that  all  sinned:  for  to 
the  extent  of  law  sin  was  in  the  world :  but  sin  is  not  reckoned 

14  if  there  be  no  law.  Nay,  but  death  reigned  from  Adam  until 
Moses,  even  over  them  that  sinned  not  after  the  sameness  with 
the  transgression  of  Adam, — who  is  type  of  the  Coming  Adam. 

15  Nay,  but  not  as  was  the  fall,  so  also  was  the  act  of  grace.  For 
if  by  the  fall  of  the  one  man  the  many  died,  much  rather  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  in  the  grace  of  the  One  Man,  Jesus 

16  Christ,  abounded  unto  the  many.     And  not,  as  was  the  fall 


4(i  ROMANS.  V.  17— VI.  13. 

throuph  ono  man  that  sinned,  so  ims  the  gift:  for  tlie  judg- 
ment indeed  ims  from  one  [fall]  unto  condemnation,  but  the 

17  act  of  grace  vas  from  many  falls  unto  justification.  For  if,  in 
the  fall  of  the  one  man,  the  death  reigned  through  the  one 
man  ;  much  rather  they  that  receive  the  abundance  of  the 
grace  and  of  the  gift  of  justification,  will  reign,  in  life,  through 

18  the  One  Man,  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly,  then,  as  through 
one  fall  [the  i-esult  was]  unto  all  men  unto  condemnation  ;  so 
also  through  one  act  of  justification  [the  result]  was  unto  all 

19  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  just  as  through  the  diso- 
bedience of  the  one  man  the  many  were  constituted  sinful, 
so  also  through  the  obedience  of  the  One  Man  the  many  will 

20  be  constituted  just.  But  law  came  in  besides  that  the  fall 
may  multiply ;  but  where  the  sin  multiplied,  the  grace  over- 

21  abounded:  that,  just  as  the  sin  reigned  in  the  death,  so  also 
the  grace  may  reign  tlirough  justification  unto  life  eternal 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

VI.  Jew.  What  then  ?  Shall  we  say,  Let  us  continue  in  the 
sin,  that  the  grace  may  abound? 

2  Paul.    God  forbid.    How  shall  we,  who  died  as  to  the  sin,  yet 

3  live  in  it?    Or  do  ye  not  know  that  we,  so  many  as  were  bap- 

4  tized  into  Christ  Jesus,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  We 
were  buried,  therefore,  with  him,  through  the  baptism  into 
his  death :  that  just  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  through 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  also  we  may  walk  in  renewal  of  life. 

5  For  if  we  have  become  united  with  him  in  the  sameness  with 
his  death,  nay,  but  we  shall  be  [united  with  him  also  in  the 

6  sameness]  with  his  resurrection  ;  knowing  this,  that  our  old  man 
was  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  the  sin  may  be  done 

7  away  with,  tliat  we  may  no  longer  be  slaves  as  to  the  sin  ;  for  he 

8  that  died  [with  him]  has  been  justified  from  the  sin.  But  if 
we  died  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with 

9  him ;  knowing  that  Christ  having  been  raised  from  the  dead 

10  no  more  dies  ;  death  no  more  lords  it  over  him.  For  the  death 
that  he  died,  he  died  as  to  the  sin,  once  for  all:  but  the  life 

11  that  he  lives,  he  lives  as  to  God.  Thus  reckon  ye  also  your- 
selves to  be  dead,  indeed,  as  to  the  sin,  but  living  as  to  God,  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

12  Let  not  the  sin,  therefore,  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that 

13  ye  should  obey  its  lusts:  nor  yet  yield  your  members  to  the 
sin,  instruments  of  unrighteousness  ;  nay,  but  yield  yourselves 


VI.  14— VII.  6.  ROMANS.  47 

to  God,  as  if  living  from  the  dead,  and  your  members  to  God, 

14  instruments  of  justification.  For  sin  will  not  lord  it  over  you  : 
for  ye  are  not  under  law,  but  under  grace. 

15  Jew.  What  then  ?  Shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not  under 
law,  but  under  grace? 

16  Paul.  God  forbid.  Do  ye  not  know  that  to  whom  ye  yield 
yourselves  slaves  with  a  view  to  obedience,  slaves  ye  are  of 
him  whom  ye  obey  ;  whether  of  sin — unto  death,  or  of  obedi- 

17  ence — unto  justification  ?  But  thanks  be  to  God,  that  ye  were 
slaves  of  the  sin,  but  obeyed  from  the  heart  the  type  of  doc- 

18  trine  into  which  ye  were  delivered ;  but  having  been  enfreed 

19  from  the  sin,  ye  were  enslaved  to  the  justification:  I  speak 
after  the  usages  of  men,  on  account  of  the  feebleness  of  your 
flesh.  For  just  as  ye  yielded  your  membei's  slaves  to  the  un- 
cleanness  and  to  the  iniquity  unto  the  iniquity,  so  now  yield 
your  members  slaves  to  the  justification  with  a  view  to  sancti- 

20  fication.     For  when  ye  were  slaves  of  the  sin,  ye  were  free 

21  men  as  to  the  justification.  What  fruit,  therefore,  were  ye 
then  having  from  those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed? 

22  for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.  But  now  having  been 
enfreed  from  the  sin,  but  having  been  enslaved  as  to  God,  ye 
have  your  fruit  unto  sanctiflcation,  but  the  end  life  eternal. 

23  For  the  wages  of  the  sin  is  death ;  but  the  free  gift  of  God  is 
life  eternal  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

VII.  Or  do  ye  not  know,  brethren  (for  I  speak  to  men  knowing 
law),  that  the  Law  lords  it  over  the  man  for  so  long  a  time  as 

2  he  lives?  For  the  wife,  subject  to  a  husband,  has  been  bound 
by  law  to  the  living  husband ;  but  if  the  husband  have  died, 

3  she  has  been  discharged  from  the  law  of  the  husband.  Accord- 
ingly then,  if,  while  the  husband  is  living,  she  become  married 
to  a  different  husband,  she  will  be  called  an  adulteress:  but  if 
the  husband  have  died,  she  is  free  from  the  Law,  so  as  not  to 
be  an  adulteress,  upon  having  become  married  to  a  different 

4  husband.  So  that,  my  brethren,  ye  also  were  put  to  death  as 
to  the  Law,  through  the  body  of  Christ,  with  a  view  to  your 
becoming  married  to  a  different  husband,  to  him  who  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  in  order  that  we  may  bring  forth  fruit 

5  to  God.  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  sinful  passionc, 
which  were  through  the  Law,  were  at  work  in  our  members  to 

6  bring  forth  fruit  to  death.  But,  now,  we  were  discharged 
from  the  Law,  having  died  to  that  [marriage]  in  which  we 


48  ROMANS.  VII.  7-26. 

were  being  held  ;  so  that  we  are  slaves  [to  God]  in  newness  of 
spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  letter. 

7  Jew.     What  then  shall  we  say?     Is  the  Law  sin? 

Paul.  God  forbid.  Nay,  but  I  did  not  know  the  sin,  except 
through  law :  for  I  was  not  aware  of  lust,  except  the  Law  was 

8  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  lust.     But  the  sin,  having  taken  advan- 
tage, through  the  commandment,  wrought  out  in  me  all  lust. 

9  For  apart  from  law,  sin  was  dead.     But,  as  for  me,  I  was  alive, 
apart  from  law  once:  but  when  the  commandment  came,  the 

10  sin  sprang  to  life,  but  I  died;  and  the  commandment,  which 
was  oi*dained  with  a  view  to  life,  this  was  found  by  me  unto 

11  death :  for  the  sin,  having  taken  advantage  through  the  com- 

12  mandment  deceived  me,  and  through  it  put  me  to  death.  So 
that  the  Law,  indeed,  is  holy,  and  the  commandment  holy, 
and  just,  and  good. 

13  Jew.  Did  then  that  which  is  good  [in  the  Law]  become 
death  to  me  ? 

Paul.  God  forbid.  Nay,  but  the  sin  [became  death  to  me]  in 
order  that  it  may  appear  sin,  through  that  which  is  good  [in 
the  Law]  working  out  death  to  me :  in  order  that  through  the 

14  commandment  the  sin  may  become  exceeding  sinful.  For  we 
know  that  the  Law  is  spiritual:  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under 

16    the  sin.     For  what  I  work  out  I  do  not  know:  for  not  what  I 

16  will,  this  I  practice;  nay,  but  what  I  hate,  this  I  do.  But  if 
what  I  will  not,  this  I  do,  I  concede  to  the  Law  that  it  is  right. 

17  But  now  it  is  no  longer  I  that  work  it  out,  nay,  but  the  sin 

18  dwelling  in  me.  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh, 
dwells  naught  good:   for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to 

19  work  out  tlie  right,  not.     For  the  good  which  I  will  I  do  not: 

20  nay,  but  the  evil  which  I  will  not,  this  I  practice.  But  if 
what  I  will  not,  this  I  do,  it  is  no  longer  I  that  work  it  out, 

21  nay,  but  the  sin  dwelling  in  me.     I  find  then  the  law  to  me 

22  who  will  to  do  the  right,  that  the  evil  is  present  with  me.     For 

23  I  accord  with  the  Law  of  God  after  the  inward  man :  but  I  see 
a  different  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my 
mind,  and  leading  me  captive  to  the  law  of  the  sin,  which  is 

24  in  my  members.     Wretched  man,  I !  who  will  deliver  me  from 

25  this  body  of  death  ?  Thanks  be  to  God  [he  will  deliver  me] 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Accordingly  then  I  myself 
with  the  mind  indeed  serve  the  Law  of  God ;  but  with  the 
flesh  the  law  of  sin. 


VIII.  1-21.  ROMANS.  49 

VIII.  There  is,  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in 

2  Christ  Jesus.     For  the  Law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 

3  enfreed  me  from  the  Law  of  the  sin  and  the  death.  For,  the 
thing  impossible  to  the  Law,  in  that  it  was  wealc  through  the 
flesh — God,  having  sent  his  own  Son  in  the  sameness  with  the 

4  flesh  of  sin,  and  for  sin,  condemned  the  sin  in  the  flesh:  in 
order  that  the  justiflcation  of  the  Law  may  be  fulfilled  in  us, 

5  who  walk  not  according  to  flesh,  but  according  to  spirit.  For 
they  that  are  according  to  flesh  mind  tlie  things  of  the  flesh ; 
but  they  that  are  according  to  spirit,  the  things  of  the  spirit. 

6  For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death  ;  but  the  mind  of  the  spirit 

7  is  life  and  peace:  because  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity 
against  God;  for  it  is  not  subjected  to  the  Law  of  God,  for 

8  neitlier  can  it  be :  but  they  that  are  in  flesh  can  not  please  God. 

9  But  ye  are  not  in  flesh,  but  in  spirit,  if  in  fact  tlie  Spirit  of 
God  dwells  in  you.     But  if  any  man  has  not  the  Spirit  of 

10  Christ,  this  man  is  not  his.  But  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body, 
indeed,  is  dead  on  account  of  sin ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  on  ac- 

11  count  of  justiflcation.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  tliat  raised 
Jesus  from  the  dead  dwells  in  you,  he  that  raised  Christ  Jesus 
from  the  dead  will  make  alive  also  your  mortal  bodies  on  ac- 
count of  his  Spirit  that  dwells  in  you. 

12  Accordingly,  therefore,  brethren,  we  are  debtors,  not  to  the 

13  flesh,  to  live  according  to  flesh:  for  if  ye  live  according  to 
flesh,  ye  will  die;  but  if  by  the  spirit  ye  put  to  death  the 

14  practices  of  the  body,  ye  will  have  life.     For  as   many  as 

15  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  sons  of  God.  For  ye 
received  not  the  spirit  of  slavery,  again,  unto  fear;  but  ye 
received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  in  which  we  cry,  Abba,  Father. 

16  The  Spirit  itself  bears  witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are 

17  children  of  God:  but  if  children,  also  heirs;  heirs,  indeed,  of 
God,  but  co-heii"S  with  Christ;  if  in  fact  we  suffer  with  him, 
that  we  may  also  be  glorified  with  him. 

18  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time  are 
not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  a-going  to  be  re- 

19  vealed  to  us-ward.     For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  crea- 

20  ture  awaits  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God.  For  the  crea- 
tui'e  was  subjected  to  the  vanity,  not  of  its  own  will,  but  on 

21  account  of  him  that  subjected  it,  in  hope ;  because  also  the 
creature  itself  will  be  enfreed  from  the  slavery  to  the  corrup- 
tion, [and  brought]  into  the  freedom  of  the  glory  of  the  chil- 

4 


50  ROMANS.  VIII.  22-89. 

'2'2    ilren  of  God.     For  we  know  that  all  tlio  creature  groans  with 

23  us,  and  travails  with  us,  until  now.  But  not  only  that,  nay, 
but  also  ourselves,  wlio  have  the  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit,  we 
also  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  awaiting  adoption,  the 

24  redemption  of  our  body.  For  in  the  hope  [of  this]  we  were 
saved:  but  a  hope  being  seen  is  not  hope:  for  what  one  sees 

26  why  does  he  hope  for  it?  But  if  what  we  do  not  see,  we  hope 
for  it,  with  patience  we  await  it. 

28  But  in  like  manner  also  the  Spirit  helps  our  weakness:  for 
we  know  not  what  we  should  pray,  as  we  ought;  nay,  but 
the  Spirit  itself  intercedes  for  us,  with  groanings  unspeak- 

27  able ;  but  he  that  searches  the  hearts  knows  what  is  the 
mind  of  the   Spirit,  because   it  is  according  to  God  that  it 

28  intercedes  for  [the]  saints.  But  we  know  that  all  things 
work  together  for  good  with  them  that  love  God,  with  them 

29  that  are  called  according  to  his  plan  of  old.  Because  them 
whom  he  of  old  had  in  thought,  he  also  of  old  included  in 

30  his  plan,  being  conform  with  the  image  of  his  Son;  that  he 
may  be  firstborn  among  many  brethren:  but  whom  he  of  old 
included  in  his  plan,  these  he  also  called :  and  whom  he 
called,  these  he  also  justified:  but  whom  he  justified,  these 
he  also  glorified. 

31  What   then   shall   we  say  in    regai-d    to   these    things  ?      If 

32  God  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us  ?  He  that  at  least  spared  not 
his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  will  he  not 

33  also  with  him  graciously  give  us  all  things?  Who  will  charge 
aught  against  God's  elect?     Will  God  who  justifies  them? 

34  Who  is  he  that  will  condemn  them?  Is  it  Christ  who  died? 
but,  rather,  who  was  raised?   who  also  is  at  the  right  hand 

35  of  God?  who  also  intercedes  for  us?  Who  will  separate  us 
from  the  love  of  Christ?  Will  affliction?  or  anguish?  or 
persecution  ?  or  famine?  or  nakedness?  or  danger  ?  or  sword  ? 

36  according  as  it  has  been  written,  that 

For  thy  sake  we  are  put  to  death  all  the  day  long; 
We  were  reckoned  as  sheep  for  slaughter? 

37  Nay,  but  in  all  these  things  we  do  more  than  conquer  through 

38  him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death, 
nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  things  present,  nor 

39  things  to  come,  nor  powers,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any 
other  creature,  will  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 


IX.  1-21.  ROMANS.  51 

IX.     I  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  my  consciousness  wit- 

2  nessing  with  me  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  I  have  great  sorrow, 

3  and  unceasing  pain  in  my  heart.  For  I  could  wish  that  I  my- 
self were  anathema  from  Christ  instead  of  my  brethren,  my 

4  kinsmen  according  to  flesh:  who  are  Israelites;  whose  is  the 
adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  ^nd  the  legisla- 

5  tion,  and  the  temple-service,  and  the  promises ;  whose  are  the 
fathers;  and  from  whom  is  the  Christ,  according  to  flesh,  who 

6  is  over  all,  God,  blessed  forever.  Amen.  But  I  do  not  imply 
such  a  thing  as  that  the  word  of  God  has  fallen  away.     For  not 

7  all  these  who  are  from  Israel  are  Israel :  nor  yet,  because  they 
are  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  his  children:  nay,  but  [it  has 
been  written]  In  Isaac  [not  in  Ishmael]  will  thy  seed  be  called. 

8  That  is,  not  these,  the  children  of  the  flesh,  are  children  of 
God;  nay,  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  reckoned  for 

9  seed.     For  of  a  promise  was  this  word:  According  to  this  sea- 

10  son  I  will  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.  But  not  in  that 
instance  only ;  nay,  but  also  Rebecca  having  conceived  from 

11  one  husband,  Isaac,  our  father  (for  the  children  not  yet  hav- 
ing been  born,  nor  yet  having  practiced  anything  good  or  bad, 
in  order  that  God's  plan  of  old  by  way  of  election,  may  remain 

12  not  from  works,  nay,  but  from  him  that  calls),  it  was  said  to 

13  her,  that  The  elder  will  serve  the  younger ;  according  as  it  has 
been  written,  Jacob  I  loved,  but  Esau  I  hated. 

14  Jew.  What  then  shall  we  say?  Is  there  injustice  with 
God  ? 

15  Paul.  God  forbid.  For  to  Moses  the  Scripture  says,  I  will 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  may  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  com- 

16  passion  on  whom  I  may  have  compassion.  Accordingly  then 
God's  election  [national  selection]  is  not  of  him  that  wills,  nor 

17  of  him  that  runs,  but  of  God  that  has  mercy.  For  the  Scrip- 
ture says  to  Pharaoh,  that  Unto  this  very  end  I  raised  thee  up, 
that  I  may  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  may  be 

18  published  in  all  the  earth.    Accordingly  then  on  whom  he  will 

19  he  has  mercy,  but  whom  he  will  he  hardens.  Wilt  thou  then 
say  to  me, 

Jew.    Why  does  he  yet  blame  us?  for  who  withstands  his 

will? 

20  Paul.  O  man ,  indeed  then ,  who  art  thou  that  answerest  back 
to  God  ?    Shall  the  vessel  molded  say  to  him  that  molded  it, 

21  Why  didst  thou  make  me  thus  ?     Or  has  not  the  potter  control 


52  ROMAXS.  IX.  22— X.  2. 

of  the  clay,  from  the  same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  a  vessel 

22  unto  honor,  and  another  a  vessel  unto  dishonor?  But  if  God, 
purposing  to  display  his  wrath,  and  to  make  known  his  power, 
[nevertheless]  endured  with  much  longsuffering  [the  Jewish] 
vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto  destruction,  [this  does  not  commit 

23  him  to  endure  them  forever]:  And  [he  endured  them  only]  in 
oi"der  that  lie  may  [thus]  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory 
upon  [us  Gentile]  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  of  old  prepared 

24  unto  glory,  whom  also  he  called,  us,  not  only  from  Jews,  nay, 

25  but  also  from  Gentiles.     As  also  in  Hosea  the  Scripture  says: 

I  will  call  the  non-people  of  me,  my  people ; 
And  her,  the  not-beloved  one,  beloved. 

26  And  it  will  be,  that  in  the  place  where  it  was  said  to  them, 
Ye  are  not  my  people. 

There  they  will  be  called  Sons  of  the  living  God. 

27  But  Isaiah  cries  concerning  Israel, 

If  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of  the 

sea, 
[Only]  the  remnant  will  be  saved : 

28  For  a  thing  will  Jehovah  do  upon  the  earth, 
Accomplishing  it  and  cutting  it  short. 

29  And,  accoi-ding  as  Isaiah  before  has  said, 

Unless  Jehovah  of  armies  had  left  us  a  seed, 
"We  should  have  become  as  Sodom,  and  should  have  been 
made  like  Gomorrah. 

30  Jew.     What  then  shall  we  say  ? 

Paul.     That  Gentiles,  who  were  not  seeking  justification, 

31  obtained  justification,  but  juj^tification  which  is  from  faith: 
but  Israel,  seeking  a  law  [legal  method]  of  justification,  did 
not  attain  to  this  law. 

32  Jew.     Wherefore? 

Paul.     Because  [they  sought  it]  not  from  faith,  nay,  but  as 
from  works.     They  stumbled  against  the  Stone  of  stumbling; 

33  according  as  it  has  been  written. 

Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  Stone  of  stumbling  and  a  Rock  of 

offense : 

And  he  that  has  faith  on  him  will  not  be  brought  to  shame. 

X.       Brethren,  the  desire  indeed  of  my  heart  and  my  prayer  to 

2    God  is  in  their  behalf,  that  they  may  be  saved.     For  I  bear 

them  witness  that  they  have  a  zeal  for  God,  nay,  but  not  ac- 


X.  3-19.  ROMANS.  53 

3  cording  to  knowledge.  For  ignoring  God's  plan  of  justifica- 
tion, and  seeking  to  establish  their  own,  they  did  not  subject 

4  themselves  to  God's  plan  of  justification.     For  Christ  is  [the] 

5  end  of  law  unto  justification  to  every  one  that  has  faith.  For 
Moses  describes  the  justification  which  is  from  law  that  the 

6  man  that  has  done  these  tilings  will  have  life  in  it.  But  the 
justification  from  faith  says  thus,  Say  not  in  thy  heart,  Who 

7  will  ascend  into  heaven  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down)  ?  or, 
Who  will  descend  into  the  abyss  ?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up 

8  from  the  dead).  Nay,  but  what  says  it?  The  word  is  nigh 
thee,  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart  (that  is,  the  word  of  the 

9  faith,  which  word  we  preach):  Because  if  thou  profess  with 
thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  have  faith  in  thy  heart  that  God 

10  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  wilt  be  saved:  for  with  the 
heart  faith  is  exercised  unto  justification  ;  but  with  the  mouth 

11  profession  is  made  unto  salvation.  For  the  Scripture  says, 
Every  one  that  has  faith  upon  him  will  not  be  put  to  shame. 

12  For  there  is  no  distinction  between  Jew  and  Greek :  for  the 
same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all,  being  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon 

13  him:  for  [it  has  been  written]  Every  one  that  shall  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  will  be  saved. 

14  Jew.  How  then  shall  they  [the  Gentiles]  call  on  him  upon 
whom  they  did  not  have  faith  ?  but  how  shall  they  have  faith 
upon  him  whom  they  did  not  hear?    But  how  shall  they  hear 

15  apart  from  one  preaching?  But  how  shall  they  preach  if  they 
be  not  sent?  according  as  it  has  been  written,  How  beautiful 
are  the  feet  of  them  that  bring  the  gospel  of  good  things  I 

16  Paul.  Nay,  but  not  all  [the  Jews]  hearkened  to  the  gospel. 
For  Isaiah  says,  Lord,  who  [of  us]  had  faith  in  that  which  we 
heard  ? 

17  Jew.  Then  faith  comes  from  that  which  one  hears  ;  but  that 
which  one  hears  [of  the  gospel]  is  through  the  word  of  Christ. 

18  Paul.  Nay,  but  I  say.  Did  they  [the  Gentiles]  not  hear? 
Yea,  indeed,  then ;  [as  it  has  been  written  ], 

Into  all  the  earth  went  out  the  sound  of  them. 
And  unto  the  ends  of  the  world  the  words  of  them. 

19  Nay,  but  I  say,  Did  Israel  not  know  [this  call  of  the  Gentiles]? 
First,  Moses  says, 

I  will  move  you  to  jealousy  at  a  no-nation ; 

At  a  nation  without  understanding  I  will  anger  you. 


64  ROMANS.  X.  20— XI.  17. 

20  But  Isaiah  ventures,  and  says, 

I  was  found  by  the  [Gentiles]  not  seeking  me; 
I  became  manifest  to  them  not  asking  for  me. 

21  But  as  to  Israel  lie  says,  All  the  day  long  did  I  spread  out  my 
hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people. 

XI.      .Tkw.     I  say  then,  Did  God  thrust  nwny  his  |»eople? 

Pail.     G(x1  forbid,    .\iitl  [I  may  say  so],  for /am  an  Israelite, 

2  from  seed  of  Abraham,  tribe  of  Benjamin.  God  did  not  thrust 
away  his  people,  wiiich  he  of  old  liad  in  thought.  Or  do  ye  not 
know  what  the  Scripture  says  in  the  story  of  Elijah?  how  he 

3  pleads  witli  God  against  Israel:  Lord,  thy  prophets  they  killed, 
thy  altars  they  dug  down,  and  I  alone  was  left  alive,  and  they 

4  seek  my  life.  Nay,  but  what  says  to  him  the  answer  of  God  ? 
I  left  over  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  who  did  not  bow 

5  knee  to  Baal.  Thus  then  also,  in  the  present  time,  there  has 
become  a  remnant  [of  Israel]  according  to  election  of  grace. 

6  But  if  it  is  by  grace,  it  is  no  longer  from  works:  else  the  grace 
no  longer  becomes  grace. 

7  Jew.     What  then  ? 

Paul.     What  Israel  seeks  for,  this  he  did  not  obtain,  but  the 

8  election  obtained  it ;  but  the  rest  were  hardened ;  according  as 
it  has  been  written,  God  gave  them  a  spirit  of  stupor,  eyes 
that  they  may  not  see,  and  ears  that  they  may  not  hear,  until 

9  this  very  day.     And  David  says. 

Let  their  table  become  a  snare,  and  a  trap, 

And  a  stumbling  stone,  and  a  recompense  to  them: 

10  Let  their  eyes  be  darkened  that  they  may  not  see. 
And  their  back  always  bow  thou  down. 

11  Jew.     I  say  then.  Did  they  stumble  that  they  may  fall? 
Paul.     God  forbid:  nay,  but  by  their  fall  is  the  salvation  to 

12  the  Gentiles,  to  enkindle  them  to  zeal.  But  if  their  fall  is  the 
riches  of  the  world,  and  their  loss  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles, 

13  how  much  rather  will  be  their  fullness  ?  But  I  say  this  to  you, 
the  Gentiles.     Forasmuch,   indeed,  then,  as  I  am  apostle  of 

14  Gentiles,  1  glorify  my  ministry:  if  in  some  way  I  may  enkindle 

15  to  zeal  my  flesh,  and  may  save  some  from  them.  For  if  the 
casting  away  of  them  is  the  reconciling  of  the  world,  wliat  will 

16  be  the  taking  of  them  back,  if  not  life  from  the  dead?  But  if 
the  firstfruit  is  holy,  so  also  is  the  batch:  and  if  the  root  is 

17  holy,  so  also  are  the  branches.    But  if  some  of  the  branches 


XI.  18-36.  ROMANS.  55 

were  broken  out,  but  thou,  being  a  wild  olive,  wast  ingrafted 
in  them,  and  becamest  partaker  with  them  of  the  root  of  the 

18  fatness  of  the  olive-tree;  boast  not  against  the  branches:  but 
if  thou  boastest  against  them,  not  thou  bearest  the  root,  but 

19  the  root  thee.     Thou  wilt  say  then,  Bi-anches  were  broken  out, 

20  that  I  maybe  ingrafted.  Well;  by  their  unfaith  they  were 
broken  out,  but  thou  by  thy  faith  standest.     Be  not  high- 

21  minded,  but  fear:  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches, 

22  neither  will  he  spare  thee.  See,  then,  God's  goodness  and 
severeness:  upon  them  indeed  that  fell,  severeness ;  but  upon 
thee,  God's  goodness,  if  thou  abide  in  his  goodness:  else  thou 

23  also  will  be  cut  out.  But  those  also,  if  they  abide  not  in  their 
unfaith,  will  be  ingrafted ;  for  God  is  able  to  ingraft  them 

24  again.  For  if  thou  wast  cut  out  from  the  tree,  a  wild  olive  by 
nature,  and  contrary  to  nature  wast  ingrafted  into  a  good 
olive ;  how  much  rather  will  these,  the  natural  branches,  be 
ingrafted  in  their  own  olive  ? 

25  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  of 
this  secret,  lest  ye  be  conceited  with  yourselves,  that  harden- 
ing in   part  has  become   to  Israel,  until  the   fullness  of  the 

26  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in;  and  thus  all  Israel  will  be 
saved:  according  as  it  has  been  written. 

From  Zion  will  come  the  Deliverer ; 

He  will  turn  away  impieties  from  Jacob : 

27  And  this  ivill  be  the  covenant  from  me  with  them. 
When  I  shall  have  taken  away  their  sins. 

28  As  regards  the  gospel,  indeed,  they  are  enemies  on  account  of 
you :  but  as  regards  the  election,  they  are  beloved  on  account 

29  of  the  fathers.     For  the  gifts  of  grace  and  the  calling  of  God 

30  are  unrepented.     For  just  as  ye  once  disobeyed  God,  but  now 

31  obtained  mercy  by  the  disobedience  of  these,  so  also  these 
now  disobeyed,  that  by  the  mercy  shown  to  you  they  them- 

32  selves  also  may  now  obtain  mercy.  For  God  shut  up  all  men 
unto  disobedience,  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon  them  all. 

33  0  depth  of  riches  and  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God!  how 

34  unsearchable  his  judgments,  and  untraceable  his  ways!     For, 

Who  knew  the  mind  of  the  Lord? 
Or  who  became  his  counselor  ? 

35  Or  who  first  gave  to  him  ? 

And  it  will  be  repaid  him. 


56  ROMANS.  XII.  1-21. 

36  Because  from  liim,  and  tliroiigh  liim,  and  unto  him,  are 
all  things.     To  him  be  the  glory  forcvor.     Amen. 

XII.  I  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  through  the  mercies  of 
God,  to  present  your  bodies   a  sacrifice,   living,   holy,   well- 

2  pleasing  to  God,  your  rational  service.  And  do  not  be  in 
fashion  with  this  age:  nay,  but  be  transformed  by  the  renewal 
of  your  mind,  to  the  end  tliat  ye  may  test  what  is  the  good 
and  well-pleasing  and  complete  will  of  God. 

3  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  that  was  given  me,  to  every  one 
that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  liimself  more  highly  than  he 
ought  to  think  ;  but  so  to  think  [of  himself]  as  to  think  soberly, 

4  as  to  each  one  God  imparti'd  a  measure  of  faith.  For  according 
as  in  one  body  we  have  many  members,  but  the  members  have 

5  not  all  the  same  office:  thus  we,  the  many,  are  one  body  in 

6  Christ,  but  severally  members  of  one  another,  but  having 
endowments  differing  according  to  the  grace  that  was  given 
us;    whether    prophecy,    according    to  the  proportion  of  the 

7  faith  ;  or  ministry,  in  the  ministry  ;  or  he  that  teaches,  in  the 

8  teaching;  or  he  that  exhorts,  in  the  exhorting;  he  that  gives, 
in  simplicity ;  he  that  presides,  in  earnestness ;  he  that  shows 

9  mercy,  in  cheerfulness.     Love  is  without  hypocrisy.     Abhor 

10  that  which  is  evil ;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good.  In  brotherly 
love,  be  affectionate  to  one  another;  in  honor  preferring  one 

11  another  ;  in  earnestness  not  slothful ;  in  spirit  fervent ;  serv- 

12  ing  the  Lord;    in   hope,  rejoicing;    in  affliction,  patient;    in 

13  prayer,  persevering;  contributing  to  the  needs  of  the  saints; 

14  pursuing  hospitality.     Bless  them  that  persecute  you;  ble.ss, 

15  and  curse  not.     Rejoice  with  them  that  rejoice ;  weep  with 

16  them  that  weep.  Be  of  the  same  mind  towards  one  another. 
Mind  not  the  high  things,  but  be  carried  away  with  the  lowly 

17  things.  Become  not  conceited  with  yourselves.  Requite  to  no 
one  evil  for  evil.     Take  forethought  for  things  honorable  in 

18  the  sight  of  all  men.     If  possible,  as  far  as  in  you  lies,  be  at 

19  peace  with  all  men.  Avenge  not  yourselves,  beloved,  but 
give  place  to  the  wrath ;  for  it  has  been  written, 

Vengeance  belongs  to  me ;  I   will  repay,  says  the  Loi"d. 

20  Nay,  but, 

If  thy  enemy  hunger,  feed  him  ; 

If  lie  thirst,  give  him  drink:  for,  this  doing, 

Thou  wilt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head. 


XII  r.  1— XIV.  4.  ROMANS.  67 

21  Be  not  conquered  by  his  evil,  but  conquer  his  evil  with  thy 
good. 

XIII.  Let  every  soul  submit  to  the  higher  authorities :  for  there  is 
no  authority  except  by  God  ;  but  the  authorities  that  are  have 

2  been  ordained  by  God.  So  that  he  that  opposes  the  authority 
resists  the  ordinance  of  God :  but  they  that  resist  will  receive 

3  to  themselves  judgment.  For  the  rulers  are  not  a  fear  to  the 
good  work,  but  to  the  bad.  But  wilt  thou  not  fear  the 
authority?  do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  wilt  have  praise 

4  from  it:  for  it  is  God's  minister  to  thee  unto  that  which  is 
good.  But  if  thou  do  tliat  which  is  bad,  fear ;  for  it  wears  not 
the  sword  in  vain ;  for   it  is   God's   minister,   vengeful   unto 

5  wi'ath  to  him  that  practices  that  which  is  bad.  Wherefore 
there  is  necessity  to  submit,  not  only  on  account  of  the  wrath, 

6  but  also  on  account  of  conscience.  For  on  this  account  ye 
pay  tribute  also ;  for  they  are  God's  servitors,  to  this  very 

7  thing  devoting  themselves.  Render  to  all  their  dues:  the 
tribute  to  whom  ye  owe  the  tribute  ;  the  custom,  to  whom  the 
custom ;  the  fear,  to  whom  the  fear ;  the  honor,  to  whom  the 
honor. 

8  To  no  one  owe  anything,  except  to  love  one  another:  for  he 

9  that  loves  the  other  has  fulfilled  law.  For  the  [saying].  Thou 
shalt  not  commit  adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt 
not  steal,  TIiou  shalt  not  covet,  and  if  there  is  any  other  com- 
mandment, it  is  summed  up  in  this  word,  namely,    "Thou 

10  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  Love  works  no  ill  to  his 
neighbor  ;  love  therefore  is  fulfillment  of  law. 

11  And  this,  knowing  the  season,  that  now  it  is  time  for  you  to 
awake  out  of  sleep ;  for  now  is  salvation  nearer  us  than  when 

12  we  first  had  faith.  The  night  sped  on,  but  the  day  has  come 
near  ;  let  us  therefore  put  off  the  works  of  the  darkness,  but  let 

13  us  put  on  the  weapons  of  the  light.  Let  us  walk  becomingly  as 
in  day  ;  not  with  revels  and  drunkennesses,  not  with  chamber- 

14  ings  and  wantonnesses,  not  with  strife  and  jealousy  ;  nay,  but 
put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  not  provision  for 
the  flesh,  to  satisfy  its  lusts. 

XIV.  But  him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye,  not  with  a  view 

2  to  criticisms  of  his  opinions.    One  man  has  faith  to  eat  all 

3  things:  but  he  that  is  weak  eats  only  vegetables.  Let  not  him 
that  eats  contemn  him  that  eats  not ;  and  let  not  him  that  eats 


58  ROMANS.  XIV.  5-23. 

4  not  judge  him  that  eats:  for  God  received  him.  "Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  another's  servant?  to  his  own  loiti  he  stands  or 
falls.     But  he  will  be  made  to  stand ;  for  the  Loi-d  has  power 

5  to  make  him  stand.     One  man  esteems  day  above  day:  but 

6  another  esteems  every  day.  Let  each  one  be  fully  assured  in 
his  own  mind.  He  that  minds  the  day,  minds  it  to  the  Lord: 
and  lie  that  eats,  eats  to  the  Loi-d,  for  he  thanks  God ;  and  he 

7  that  eats  not,  to  the  Loi"d  eats  not,  and  thanks  God.     For  no 

8  one  of  us  lives  to  himself,  and  no  one  dies  to  himself.  For  if 
we  live,  we  live  to  the  Lord  ;  and  if  we  die,  we  die  to  the  Loiti : 

9  if  we  live  therefore,  or  if  we  die,  we  are  the  Loi-d's.  For  to 
this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived  again,  that  he  may  be  loi-d 

10  both  of  dead  men  and  of  living.  But  thou !  why  dost  thou 
judge  thy  brother?  or,  also,  thou!  why  contemnest  thou  thy 
brother?    for  we  all  shall  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  God. 

11  For  it  has  been  written, 

'As  I  live,"  says  the  Lord,  "[I  swear]  that  to  me  every  knee 

shall  bow. 
And  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God." 

12  Accoi*dingly  then  each  one  of  us  concerning  himself,  will 
give  account  to  God. 

13  No  longer  therefore  let  us  judge  one  another  ;  nay,  but  judge 
ye  this  rather,  not  to  put  a  stumbling-block  for  your  brother, 

14  or  an  occasion  of  offense.  I  know,  and  am  persuaded  in  the 
Loi-d  Jesus,  that  nothing  is  unclean  through  itself:  except  to 
him  that  reckons  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  that  man  it  is 

15  unclean.  For  if  on  account  of  thy  food  thy  brother  is  grieved, 
thou   walkest   no  longer   according   to   love.     "With  thy  food 

16  destroy  not  that  man  for  whom  Christ  died.     Let  not  there- 

17  fore  your  good  be  defamed:  for  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not 
eating  and  drinking ;  nay,  but  justification  and  peace  and  joy 

18  in  the  Holy  Spirit.     For  he  that  in  this  matter  serves  Christ, 

19  is  well  pleasing  to  God,  and  approved  by  men.  Accoi-dingly 
then   let  us   follow  the  things  of  peace,   and    the    things  of 

20  edification  to  one  another.  Do  not  for  the  sake  of  food 
destroy  the  work  of  God.     All  foods  indeed  are  clean,  but  [to 

21  eat  theml  is  bad  to  the  man  that  eats  with  offense.  It  is  good 
not  to  eat  flesh,  nor  yet  to  drink  wine,  nor  yet  to  do  aught  in 

22  which  thy  brother  stumbles.  The  faith  which  thou  thyself 
hast,  have  to  thyself  before  God.    Happy  is  he  that  judges  not 


XIV.  23— XV.  15.  R02\fANS.  59 

23  himself  in  that  which  he  approves.  But  if  he  that  discrimi- 
nates eat,  he  has  been  condemned,  because  he  eats  not  from 
faith  ;  but  everything  which  is  not  from  faith  is  sin. 

XV.  But  we  the  strong  ought  to  bear  with  the  weaknesses  of  the 

2  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.     Let  each  one  of  us  please 

3  his  neighbor  unto  that  which  is  good,  unto  edification.  And 
[this  do],  for  Christ  did  not  please  himself;  nay,  but  so  lived, 
according  as  it  has  been  written.  The  reproaches  of  them  that 

4  reproach  thee  fell  upon  me.  For  as  many  things  as  were 
written  of  old,  were  written  for  our  instruction,  that  thi'ough 
the  patience  and  through  the  encouragement  of  the  Scriptures 

5  we  may  have  the  liope.  But  may  the  God  of  the  patience,  and 
of  the  encouragement,  give  you  to  be  of  the  same  mind  with 

6  one  another,  according  to  Christ  Jesus :  that  with  one  accord 
with  one  mouth  ye  may  glorify  the  God  and  Father  of  our 

7  Loi*d  Jesus  Christ.   Whei'efore  receive  ye  one  another,  accord- 

8  ing  as  also  Christ  received  you,  to  glory  of  God.  For  I  say 
that  Christ  has  become  minister  of  circumcision  in  behalf  of 
God's  truthfulness,  that  he  may  confirm  the  promises  given  to 

9  the  fathers ;  but  that  the  Gentiles  may  glorify  God  for  his 
mercy  ;  accoi-ding  as  it  has  been  written, 

On  this  account  I  will  confess  to  thee  among  the  Gentiles, 
And  to  thy  name  I  will  sing. 

10  And  again  the  Scripture  says, 

Rejoice,  Gentiles,  with  his  people. 

11  And  again. 

Praise,  all  ye  Gentiles,  Jehovah  ; 
And  let  all  the  peoples  praise  him, 

12  And  again,  Isaiah  says, 

Thei'e  will  be  the  root  of  Jesse, 
And  he  tliat  arises  to  rule  Gentiles  ; 
On  him  Gentiles  will  hope. 

13  But  may  the  God  of  the  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in 
having  faith,  that  ye  may  abound  in  the  hope,  in  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

14  But  I  myself  also  am  persuaded  concerning  you,  my  brethren, 
that  ye  also  yourselves  are  full  of  goodness,  having  been  filled 
with  all  knowledge,  being  able  also  to  admonish  one  another. 

15  But  I  write  to  you  more  boldly  in  part,  as  again  reminding 
you,  on  account  of  the  grace  that  was  given  me  from  God, 


60  ROMANS.  XV.  10-33. 

18  to  the  end  lliiit  I  sliould  he  u  niiiiistrant  of  Christ  Jesus  aa  to 
the  Gentiles,  ministeriiiR  tlie  gospel  of  God,  in  order  that  the 
offering  up  of  the  Gentiles  may  become  acceptable,  having 

17  been   sanctified    in    the   Holy   Spirit.      I   have   therefore   my 

18  boasting  in  Christ  Jesus  in  the  things  pertaining  to  God.  For 
I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  the  things  which  Christ  did 
not  work  through  me,  unto  obedience  of  Gentiles,  by  woi*d  and 

19  work,  in  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;    so   that   from   Jerusalem,   and   in   circuit   as   far  as 

20  Illyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ;  but 
[I  have  done  so],  being  ambitious  so  to  preach  the  gospel,  not 
where  Christ  was  named,  that  I  may  not  build  upon  another's 

21  foundation ;  nay,  but  [to  preach]  accoi*ding  as  it  has  been 
written, 

They,  to  whom  nothing  was  announced  concerning  him, 

will  see  ; 
And  they  that  have  not  heard  will  understand. 

22  "Wherefore  also  I  was  hindered  these  many  times  from  com- 

23  ing  unto  you :  but  now  no  longer  having  place  in  these  regions, 
but  having  fi'om  many  years  a  longing  to   come    unto   you, 

24  whenever  I  may  go  unto  Spain  (for  I  hope,  passing  through,  to 
see  you,  and  by  you  to  be  sent  forward  thither,  if,  first,  I  may 

25  be  filled  in  part,  with  your  company);  but  now  I  am  setting 

26  out  unto  Jerusalem,  ministering  to  the  saints.  For  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  thought  well  to  make  some  contribution  unto  the 

27  poor  of  the  saints  that  are  in  Jerusalem:  for  they  thought 
well ;  and  they  are  their  debtors ;  for  if  the  Gentiles  shared 
in  their  spiritual  things,  they  ought  also  to  minister  to  them  in 

28  the  carnal  things.  When  therefore  I  have  accomplished  this, 
and  have  sealed  to  them  this  fruit,  I  will  come  away  through 

29  you  unto  Spain.  But  I  know  that,  coming  unto  you,  I  shall 
come  in  the  fullness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ. 

30  But  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  through  our  Loi-d  Jesus  Christ, 
and  through  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  to  strive  together  with  me 

81  in  your  prayers  to  God  for  me  ;  that  I  may  be  delivered  from 
them  that  are  disobedient  in  Judea,  and  that  my  ministration 

32  unto  Jerusalem  may  become  acceptable  to  the  saints  ;  in  order 
that  in  joy  I  may  come  unto  you  through  the  will  of  God,  and 

33  may  find  rest  together  with  you.  But  the  God  of  peace  be 
with  you  all.    Amen. 


XVI.  1-22.  ROifAXS.  61 

XVI.  But  I  commend  to  you  Phoebe  our  sister,  who  is  a  deaconess 

2  of  the  church  that  is  in  Cenclireae :  that  ye  may  receive  her  in 
the  Lord,  worthily  of  the  saints,  and  that  ye  may  assist  her  in 
whatever  matter  she  may  need  you:  and,  so,  for  she  herself 
became  an  assister  of  many,  and  of  my  own  self. 

3  Salute  Prisca  and  Aquila  my  fellow-workers  in  Christ  Jesus, 

4  who  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  neck  ;  whom  not  I  alone 

5  thank,  nay,  but  also  all  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles:  and 
salute   the   church    in    their   house.      Salute    Epsenetus    my 

6  beloved,  who  is  the  firstfruits  of  Asia  unto  Christ.     Salute 

7  Mary,  who  labored  much  upon  you.  Salute  Andronicus  and 
Junia,  my  kinsmen,  and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note 
among  the  apostles,  who  also  became  in  Christ  before  me. 

8  Salute  Ampliatus  my  beloved  in  the  Lord. 

9  Salute  Urbanus  our  fellow-worker  in  Christ,  and  Stachys  my 

10  beloved.    Salute  Apelles  the  approved  in  Christ.    Salute  them 

11  that  are  from  the  household  of  Aristobulus.  Salute  Herodian 
my   kinsman.     Salute  them  that  are  from  the  household  of 

12  Narcissus,  that  are  in  the  Lord.  Salute  Tryphsena  and  Try- 
phosa,  who  labor  in  the  Lord.    Salute  Persis  the  beloved,  who 

13  labored  much  in  the  Lord.     Salute   Rufus   the   elect   in   the 

14  Lord,  and  his  mother  and  mine.  Salute  Asyncritus,  Phlegon, 
Hermes,   Patrobas,  Hernias,  and  the  brethren  that  are  with 

15  them.     Salute  Philologus  and  Julia,  Nereus  and  his  sister, 

16  and  Olympas,  and  all  the  saints  that  are  with  them.  Salute 
one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  All  the  churches  of  Christ 
salute  you. 

17  But  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  mark  them  that  are  making 
the  divisions  and  the  occasions  of  stumbling,  contrary  to  the 

18  doctrine  which  ye  learned:  and  turn  away  from  them.  For 
such  men  serve  not  our  Lord  Christ,  but  their  own  belly  ;  and 
through  their  smooth  and  fair  speech  they  deceive  the  hearts 

19  of  the  innocent.  For  your  obedience  came  abroad  unto  all 
men.  I  rejoice  therefore  over  you ;  but  I  would  that  ye  be 
wise  unto  that  which  is  good,  but  simple  unto  that  which  is 

20  bad.  But  the  God  of  peace  will  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet 
speedily. 

The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you. 

21  Timotheus  my   fellow-worker  salutes  you  ;  and  Lucius  and 

22  Jason  ancj  Sosipater,  my  kinsmen.    I  Tertius,  who  write  the 


62  ROMANS.  XVI.  23-27. 

23  cpisth',  salute  you  in  tlie  Lord.  Gains  my  host,  and  of  the 
whoh'  church,  salutes  you.  Erastus  the  treasurer  of  the  city 
salutes  you,  and  Quartus  the  brother. 

25  But  to  him  that  is  able  to  establisli  you  according  to  my 
gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the 
revelation  of  the  secret  doctrine  which  has  been  kept  in  silence 

26  in  times  eternal,  but  now  was  manifested,  and  through  pro- 
l>hetic  Scriptures  was  made  known  according  to  commandment 
of  the  eternal  God,  unto  all  tht-  Gentiles,  with  a  view  to  their 

27  obedience  to  the  faith;  to  tlie  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ, — to  whom  be  the  glory  forever.    Amen. 


EXPOSITION. 


Verse  1.  Paul,  servant  of  Christ  Jesus,  a  called  apos- 
tle, set  apart  unto  the  gospel  of  God. 

Paul.  Our  apostle  received  at  circumcision  a  Hebrew  name, 
"  Saul,"  the  name  of  the  first  king  of  Israel,  held  in  traditional 
honor  in  his  patrial  tribe  of  Benjamin.  This  Hebrew  name,  the 
Christian  apostle,  immediately  before  beginning  his  great  mission 
to  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xiii,  2),  changed  for  the  Roman  name 
"  Paul  "  (Acts  xiii,  9).  Renouncing  thenceforth  his  Jewish  char- 
acter and  isolation,  he  adopted  a  cosmopolitan  name,  already 
lionored  throughout  the  Roman  world,  not  very  unlike  his  cir- 
cumcision name,  more  euphonious,  and,  what  was  a  higher  recom- 
mendation, more  suitable  in  its  meaning  to  his  new  views  of 
himself.  He  will  no  longer  bear  the  regal  name  of  his  great 
tribesman,  Saul,  "  The  Desired,"  but  will  call  himself  Paul,  "The 
Little."  The  once  proud  rabbi,  now  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  has 
humbler  views  of  himself.  "  To  me,  the  abortion."  (1  Cor.  xv,  8.) 
"  To  me,  who  am  less  than  the  least  of  all  the  saints,  was  given 
this  grace,  that  I  should  preach  Christ  amonr^;  the  Gentiles." 
(Eph.  iii,  8.)  This  humble  but  honorable  name  which  he  adopted, 
lie  made  the  gi'andest  of  all  names,  except  One,  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  and  of  the  world. 

Paul  calls  himself  slave.  The  Greek  word,  as  the  English 
word  "  slave,"  properly  means  a  bond -servant  for  life,  in  thraldom 
to  the  absolute  will  of  the  master  or  owner.  This  is  the  word  with 
which  Paul  expresses  his  utter  and  final  surrender  of  himself  to 
the  service  of  Christ.  It  is  used  also  by  Peter,  James,  and  Jude, 
of  themselves.  That  Paul  and  Peter,  and  James,  who  was  the 
earthly  brother  of  Jesus,  and  all  the  disciples,  Jews  who  spurned 
the  idea  of  slavery  to  any  man  (John  viii,  33),  should,  neverthe- 
less, commonly  call  themselves  "slaves"  of  Jesus  Christ,  shows 
how  profoundly  they  recognized  his  lordship.    No  other  word  in 

63 


64  EXPOSITION. 

all  of  Paul's  vocabulary  so  adequately  expresses  his  concept  of  the 
majesty  and  divinity  of  th»'  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Paul's  slavery  to  Christ  was  the  joyful  submission  of  heart, 
and  will,  and  life,  to  such  a  service'.  There  was  for  him  no  release 
from  it.  He  vaunted  the  badges  of  his  slavery  as  evidence  that  he 
could  not,  and  that  he  would  not,  be  separated  from  Christ. 
"  Henceforth,  let  no  one  give  me  annoyances  on  this  point. 
I  carry  in  my  person  the  slave-brands  of  the  Lord  Jesus " 
(Gal.  vi,  17)  ;  the  brands  with  whicli  Christ  had  literally  seared  his 
eyes  (Acts  ix,  18),  and  marked  him  his  thrall  forever. 

In  the  Gospels,  the  name  Christ  is  an  official  designation, 
and  as  a  rule  has  the  article,  "The  Christ;"  that  is,  "The 
Messiah,"  "  The  Lord's  Anointed."  But  in  the  Epistles,  the  word 
has  already  become  a  proper  name,  and  as  such  does  not  usually 
can-y  the  article.  Accordingly,  the  Epistles,  in  speaking  of  the 
Savior,  use  the  names  Jesus  and  Christ,  severally,  almost  indiffer- 
ently, but  usually  combine  them  in  either  order.  •• 

A  Called  Apostle.  Christ's  immediate  followers  during  the 
days  of  his  flesh  were  called  disciples,  "  learnei'S."  But  early  in  his 
ministi'y  he  selected  twelve  whom  he  named  apostles  (Luke  vi,  13) ; 
that  is,  his  "emissaries,"  his  "  missionaries,"  so  designating  them, 
especially,  as  the  ones  whom  he  would  send  to  preach  the  gospel, 
After  his  departure.  "As  thou  sentest  me  into  the  world,  I  also 
sent  [dw^cTTeiXa]  them  into  the  world."  (John  xvii,  18.)  Tliis  com- 
mission of  the  twelve  became  practically  effective  only  after  his 
death  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  evidently  not 
Christ's  intention  that  the  apostolic  college  should  be  perpetuated 
as  an  ecclesiastic  order  in  his  Church ;  and  the  nomination  of 
Matthias  (Acts  i,  26),  to  the  vacant  place  of  Judas  was  an  irregu- 
larity that  apparently  came  to  nothing,  and  was  never  repeated. 
As  the  original  "  twelve  "  died,  their  places  were  not  filled.  But 
the  Christian  apostolate  of  the  first  century  was  not  restricted  to 
the  twelve ;  and  either  the  Lord  himself,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul, 
or  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  united  Church,  afterwards 
called  other  choice  leadei-s  into  tliis  gospel  office.  Of  these,  Paul 
was  clearly  foremost.     He  derived  his  appointment  from  Christ 


•For  Illustration,  another  name  has  had  Just  the  opposite  history. 
"CoBsar,"  from  being  at  first,  the  proper  nami'  of  a  particular  man,  after- 
wards In  the  first  centuries  became  a  dynastic  title;  and  has  since 
come  to  be  a  common  appellation,  expressing  Imperial  rank;  The  Caesar 
(emperor),  The  Kaiser. 


ROMANS  I,  2.  65 

himself,  who  appeared  in  person  to  him  for  this  purpose.  His 
claim  of  equality  in  call  and  office  with  the  elder  apostles  was 
fully  conceded  by  them;  and  certainly,  "the  signs  of  an  apostle 
were  wrought  by  him,  more  abundantly  than  by  them  all." 
(2  Cor.  xii,  12;  xi,  23.)  And  Barnabas,  a  remarkable  and  better 
man  than  Matthias,  was  afterwards  recognized  as  an  apostle, 
co-ordinate  with  Paul.  (Acts  xiv,  14.)  This  is  the  claim  which 
Paul  here  advances.  By  the  word  "called"  or  summoned,  he 
expressly  disavows  self-nomination  to  the  office,  or  election  by 
others;  he  is  an  "apostle  not  from  men,  nor  through  man,  but 
through  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  i,  1.)  "He  accounted  me  faithful, 
putting  me  into  the  ministry."  (1  Thess.  i,  12.)  "I  was  appointed 
a  preacher  and  an  apostle,  a  teacher  of  Gentiles,  in  faith  and  truth." 
(1  Tim.  ii,  7.) 

The  words  of  the  text  are  not  "called  to  be  an  apostle,"  as 
in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised,  but,  as  given  above,  "  a  called 
apostle;"  like  the  common  English  constructions:  "a  chosen  ves- 
sel," "a  trusted  leader,"  "  a  born  teacher." 

Set  apart  unto  the  Gospel.  This  setting  apart  from  secu- 
lar pursuits  to  the  special  function  of  the  ministry,  dated  from 
Paul's  birth :  "  God  set  me  apart  from  my  mother's  womb,  and 
called  me  through  his  grace."  (Gal.  i,  15.)  The  call  was  repeated 
at  his  commission:  "  He  is  to  me  a  choice  vessel  [literally,  a  ves- 
sel of  selectness],  to  bear  my  name  before  Gentiles  and  sons  of 
Israel."  (Acts  ix,  15.)  And  it  was  finally  comsummated  at 
Antioeh,  when  "  The  Holy  Spirit  said,  Set  apart  to  me  Barnabas 
and  Saul  for  the  work  to  which  I  have  called  them."     (Acts  xiii,  2.) 

The  Gospel  of  God.  The  Greek  word,  evayy^Xiov,  and  the 
English  translation,  "gospel,"  are  etymological  equivalents,  both 
meaning  "  good  tidings."  In  the  Scriptures,  it  means  the  "  gospel 
of  peace,  the  glad  tidings  of  good  things."  (Rom.  x,  15.)  It  is 
the  message  of  God  to  man,  to  the  Gentile  world  as  well  as  the 
Jewish,  making  known,  first  of  all,  that  they  may  be  saved;  and 
then  telling  them  how  they  may  be  saved.  The  word  "  gospel " 
is  peculiarly  a  Pauline  word.  It  is  found  twelve  times  in  the 
Gospels.     Paul  uses  it  sixty-three  times ;  Peter,  once. 

Verse  2.  Which  he  promised  of  old,  through  his  proph- 
ets, in  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  gospel  which  Paul  preached,  the  gospel  of  life  to  the  Gen- 
tile world,  was  not  a  recent  or  unexpected  revelation,  but  was 
5 


66  EXPOSITION. 

God's  oldest  and  only  revelation  of  himself  to  men.   It  was  planned 

before  the  foundntion  of  the  world  ;  it  was  proclaimed  first  in  the 
garden  ;  and  it  was  renewed  in  each  succeeding  dispensation.  Thus 
we  read,  "With  Noah  he  established  his  covenant,  and  with  his 
seed  after  him."  (Gen.  ix,  9.)  "To  Abraham  he  preached  the 
gospel,  that  in  him  should  all  the  world  be  blessed."  (Gen. 
xii,  3;  Gal.  iii,  8.)  "By  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets  he  showed 
of  old  that  Christ  should  suffer."  (Acts  iii,  18;  1  Pet.  i,  10.) 
"  Having  begun  from  Moses,  and  from  all  the  prophets,  he  inter- 
preted to  them,  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the  things  concerning  him- 
self." (Luke  xxiv,27.)  "Those  are  my  woi-ds,  which  I  spoke 
to  you  while  I  was  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled, 
which  have  been  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  prophets,  and 
psalms,  concerning  me."     (Luke  xxiv,  44.) 

In  Holy  Scriptures.  The  word  thus  designated,  without 
the  article,  denotes  these  sacred  writings,  not  quantitatively  or 
collectively,  as  if  -^  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  but  in  their  qualitative 
character.  The  term  "Holy  Scriptures"  is  broad  enough  to  in- 
clude all  the  Old  Testament;  but  here  "the  prophets"  in  par- 
ticular are  named:  "All  the  prophets,  as  many  as  spoke,  fore- 
told these  days."  (Acts  iii,  24.)  The  supernatural  origin  and 
the  excellence  of  these  "Scriptures,  or  writings,  justified  the 
term  "  holy,"  or  "  sacred,"  with  which  the  Jews  described  them. 
For  a  similar  reason,  the  Christian  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  accounted  "  holy  ;"  their  divine  source  and  their  mes- 
sage to  men  are  the  same  as  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  "God, 
who  of  old  spoke  to  the  fathers  in  the  prophets,  in  those  last 
days  spoke  to  us  in  his  Son."  (Heb.  i,  1.)  The  two  "Testa- 
ments" constitute  for  us  one  "revelation."  Augustine  says: 
"In  the  Old  Testament  the  New  is  latent;  in  the  New,  the  Old 
is  patent." 

Verse  3.  Concerning  his  Son,  who  was  born  from  the 
seed  of  David,  according  to  flesh. 

The  connection  of  the  preposition  concerning  is  uncertain ; 
it  may  be  taken  with  "grosp^Z,"  or  with  "promised."  The  latter 
is  logically  preferable,  declaring  the  tenor  of  the  promise.  The 
affirmation  here  that  Christ  was  born  [or  ^'  became^']  from  the 
seed  of  David  declares  Christ's  pr^-cxistence.  The  verb  is  the 
same  as  in  John's  saying:  "The  Word  brntmr  flesh."  It  is  the 
same  conception  as  Paul  expresses  in  the  words:  "God  sent  his 


ROMANS  I,  4.  67 

Son  in  the  sameness  with  the  flesh  of  sin"  (Rom.  viii,  3) ;  that 
is,  in  the  sameness  with  our  sinful  humanity.  The  exact  line  of 
Christ's  descent,  as  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  was  in  the  house 
of  David  ;  but  it  was  of  the  essence  of  the  incarnation  that  he  took 
upon  himself  the  nature  of  fallen  man,  "and  became  in  the  same- 
ness with  men."  (Phil,  ii,  7.)  He  was  a  Jew,  in  the  national 
line  of  descent,  in  literal  fulfillment  of  prophecy ;  but  above  this 
non-essential  circumstance,  he  was  a  man,  "of  our  flesh  and 
bones"  (Eph.  v,  30) — (a  doubtful  reading,  but  true  in  its  teaching). 
The  phrase  according  to  flesh  means  according  to  his 
"  human  nature.  "  The  word  denotes  not  Christ's  bodi/  only,  but 
his  complete  humanity,  body  and  soul ;  or,  if  we  make  a  point  of 
Paul's  '^  tripartism,"  "body,  soul,  and  spirit."  (1  Thess.  v,  23.) 
Such  is  one  very  common  sense  of  the  word  "flesh:"  "No  flesh 
will  be  justified  in  his  sight."  (Rom.  iii,20.)  The  word,  when 
spoken  of  men,  usually  connotes  the  idea  of  sinfulness  and  of 
frailty:  "All  flesh  is  grass."  (1  Pet.  i,  24.)  Christ,  by  virtue  of 
his  incarnation  was  subject  to  all  human  limitations,  "but  with- 
out sin," 

Verse  4.  "Who  was  marked  out  Son  of  God  in  po"wer, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  from  resurrection  of 
dead  men,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Note  the  difference  between  the  two  predicates  in  the  two 
verses.  The  third  verse  declares  that  Jesus  was  "born  [or  became] 
of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh;"  the  fourth  verse 
declares  that  he  was  marked  out  Son  of  God  in  power,  from 
resurrection  of  dead  men;  that  is,  by  this  last  and  crowning 
miracle  of  the  resurrection,  he  was  clearly  designated  as  the 
divine,  the  eternal  Son.  Before  the  world  was  made,  he  was  the 
Son,  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father:  by  his  incarnation  he  "  became" 
man. 

The  phrase  "  in  power"  should  be  construed  adjectively  with 
"  Son."  Christ,  by  his  resurrection  was  marked  out,  designated, 
as  God's  Son,  no  longer  weak  ["  He  was  crucifled  through  weak- 
ness," 2  Cor.  xiii,  4]  ;  but  now  risen,  vested  ivith  all  power.  His 
resurrection,  tlie  close  of  his  life  of  hmniliation,  has  crowned  him 
the  Mighty  Lord  of  all.  "I  was  dead,  and,  behold,  I  am  alive 
forever,  and  have  the  keys  [insignia  of  power]  of  deatli  and  Hades." 
(Rev.  i,  18.)  "All  authority  was  given  me  in  heaven  and  on 
earth."     (Mat.  xxxviii,  18.)     The  Greek  words  "in  power"  are 


68  EXroSlTION. 

th<'  snmo  hero  as  in  1  Cor.  xv,  43:  "The  body  is  raised  in  powrr;" 
and  tlicre,  too,  they  should  be  taken  adjectively:  "sown  weak, 
raised  stnmij." 

According  to  the  spirit  of  holiness.  As  the  phrase 
"aeeording  tt)  tlie  Hesli  "  evidently  refers  to  Christ's  hmnanit;/,  it 
might  seein  that  the  plira.se  "according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness" 
should  refer  to  his  human  xpirit;  but  this,  his  human  spirit,  by  all 
psychological  and  scriptural  proprieties  is  already  accounted  for  in 
the  former  term  "  flesh,"  which  as  we  have  seen  includes  Christ's 
entire  human  nature,  "body,  soul,  and  spirit."  The  word  spirit 
here,  then,  must  mean  something  else.  But  it  must  not  be  iden- 
tified with  "The  Holy  Spirit,"  the  third  person  in  the  Trinity; 
for,  though  the  words  "spirit  of  holiness"  could  grammatically 
be  so  explained,  this  is  not  in  the  Christological  line  of  thought. 
The  words  apj)ly  to  the  person  of  Christ  only,  the  second  person  in 
the  Trinity.  "The  spirit  of  holiness,"  as  antithetic  to  Christ's 
humanity,  means  Christ's  own  divine  nature,  which  he  had  with 
the  Father  before  the  world  was,  the  divine  Logos,  which  was 
wliolly  spiritual  and  holy,  "the  spirit  of  holiness,"  wiiich  became 
incarnate  in  the  Son  of  Mary,  and  informed  his  whole  being, 
molded  his  earthly  life,  and  was  the  ground  of  his  resurrection. 
The  phraseology  "  spirit  of  holiness,"  rather  than  "holy  spirit" 
(aside  from  the  ambiguity  in  the  last  words),  is  explained  by  the 
tendency  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  adopt  Hebrew 
forms  of  expression.  In  Hebrew,  adjectives  are  few,  and  their 
place  is  supplied  by  substantives.  It  is  in  this  way  that  Paul  says, 
"  (xod  sent  his  Son  in  sameness  with  the  flesh  of  sin."  (Rom.  viii,3.) 
"The  spirit  of  holiness,"  then,  is  Christ's  divine  spirit,  whose 
characteristic  is  holiness,  as  "  the  flesh  of  sin  "  is  the  flesh  whose 
characteristic  is  sin. 

From  the  resurrection  of  dead,  men,— such  is  the  literal 
translation.  Our  exegesis  must  conform  to  it.  The  plural  num- 
ber of  the  words  "dead  men"  forbids  its  being  restricted  to 
Christ.  Possibly  the  plural  number  here  may  point  to  the  exem- 
plar instances,  during  his  earthly  life,  of  his  "power"  to  raise 
the  dead  to  their  earthly  life  again,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  young 
man  at  Nain,  the  daughter  of  .Tairus,  and  Lazarus.  But  more 
probably  the  ))lural  word  points' to  the  general  resurrection  at  the 
last  day,  of  which  Christ's  resurrection  was  Mh'  first,  but  the  most 
significant  instance:  "  Christ  was  the  first  one  from  the  resurrec- 
tion of  dead  men."     (Acts  xxvi,  23.)    This  general  resurrection, 


ROMANS  I,  5.  69 

which  has  its  ground  and  assui-ance  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
is  here  conceived  of,  and  spoken  of  as  aji  accomplished  fact. 
With  Christ  all  men  have  constructively  risen  (Rom.  vi,  11; 
Eph.  ii,  6) ;  and  with  him  all  men  will  actually  rise  at  the  last  day. 

Verse  5.  Through  whom  we  received  grace  and  apos- 
tleship,  with  a  view  to  obedience  to  the  faith,  among  all 
the  Gentiles,  for  his  name's  sake. 

The  plural  pronoun  we  is  Paul's  oflRcial  designation  of  him- 
self alone.  Though  he  always  labored  in  company  with  helpers, 
and  often  courteously  joined  his  colleagues  with  himself  in  his 
salutations,  or  in  general  discourse  (Gal.  i,  2),  yet  here  he  speaks 
solely  of  his  own  call  to  the  apostleship  of  the  Gentiles.  The  word 
grace,  that  is,  "favor,"  expresses  his  sense  of  God's  condescension 
in  calling  him  to  so  high  a  function  ;  and  the  word  apostleship  ex- 
presses his  particular  commission  to  the  Gentiles.  Yet,  perhaps, 
the  two  words  may  be  taken  together  as  an  instance  of  the  com- 
mon literary  figure,  hendiadys,  one  concept  in  two  terms — "  the 
grace  of  apostleship." 

"With  a  view  to  obedience  to  the  faith.  The  word  Trio-Tews 
is  in  the  genitive  case,  and  the  literal  translation  is  "  of  faith." 
The  word  means,  as  often,  not  the  subjective  personal  faith  which 
lays  hold  on  Christ,  but  the  gospel  creed,  the  objective  faith  which 
is  believed.  The  subjective  element  here  is  found,  not  in  the 
■word  faith,  but  in  the  word  obedience;  and  the  obvious  meaning  of 
the  passage  is  adequately  expressed  by  the  words  "  with  a  view 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel."  It  is  the  same  sense  as  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  words:  "A  great  multitude  were  obedient  to  the 
faith."  (Acts  vi,  7.)  Accordingly  the  idiomatic  translation  here 
is  the  one  given:  "  Obedience  to  the  faith." 

Among  all  the  Gentiles.  The  Greek  word*  here  translated 
"Gentiles"  properly  signifies  "nations,"  in  Classic  Greek,  and 
sometimes  in  the  New  Testament.  The  corresponding  word  in 
Hebrew,!  the  "  nations,"  tliat  is,  aliens  outside  the  Jewish  pale, 
early  acquired  in  Jewish  usage,  the  opprobrious  sense  of  "  pagans," 
"heathen,"  "Gentiles;"  and  such  is  the  sense  of  the  Greek  word 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  Jews  abominated  all  nations  except 
themselves,  many  of  them  the  noblest  races  in  the  world,  and  stig- 
matized them  as  "  Gentiles."    It  was  to  those  Gentiles,  specifically, 


70  EXPOSITION. 

that  Paul,  "  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,"  dedicated  his  life.  His 
work  in  this  field  was  regarded  with  hatred  by  the  Jews  at  lai-ge, 
and  with  jealousy  even  by  the  Christian  Jews ;  and  his  life  was 
one  long  contention  against  the  hostility  of  his  own  people,  in 
behalf  of  the  equality  of  the  Gentiles  in  Christ.  His  Epistles  are 
full  of  this  subject  :  and  the  word  "  Gentiles"  occurs  in  this  dis- 
tinctive way  twenty-nine  times  in  the  Romans,  and  twenty-eight 
times  in  his  other  epistles.  It  was  to  discuss  the  relations  of  the 
Gentiles  to  the  gospel  that  this  epistle  was  written.  The  word 
''Romans"  does  not  imply  that  the  people  whom  he  addressed 
were  citizens  of  Rome,  but  only  residents  at  Rome;  and  the 
majority  of  them  were  certainly  Gentiles,  and  but  few  of  them 
Jewish  Christians.  We  shall  have  occasion  under  Rom.  ill,  29, 
to  discuss  the  relation  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  gospel,  and  to  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

For  his  name's  sake.  A  person's  name  represeftts  all  that 
constitutes  the  person  ;  and  is,  accordingly,  a  common  synonym  for 
the  person.  Thus  w'e  read:  "There  was  a  multitude  of  names 
together,  about  a  hundred  and  twenty."  (Acts  i,  15.)  So,  here, 
Paul  says,  his  mission  is  "for  his  name;"  but  in  2  Cor.  v,  20,  he 
says:  "We  are  amVjassadors  for  Christ." 

Verse  6.  Anaong  whom  are  also  ye,  Jesus  Christ's 
called. 

The  Jews  held  that  they  only  were  God's  elect.  God  had 
called  them  "my  people,  my  chosen,  the  people  I  have  formed 
for  myself."  (Isa.  xliii,  2.)  This  election,  which  was  only  to 
religious  or  institutional  privileges,  they  counted  an  election  to 
eternal  life  for  themselves,  for  all  of  themselves.  They  thought 
it  an  indefeasible,  absolute  decree  in  their  favor,  with  which  the 
rest  of  the  world  had  nothing  to  do.  No  Gentile,  as  such,  no 
uncircumcised  man,  could  be  saved.  This  assumption  for  them- 
selves, and  disparagement  of  the  Gentiles,  was  so  deeply  seated 
that  even  the  converts  from  among  the  Jews  to  Christianity  could 
with  difficulty  free  themselves  from  their  prejudice.  Peter  and 
James  never  lost  their  early  j)reconceptions.  John,  whose  last 
years  were  spent  in  the  Greek  city  Ephesus,  possibly  outlived  his 
prejudices.  But  very  different  from  the  first  was  Paul's  concep- 
tion, both  as  to  the  nature  and  as  to  the  extent  of  God's  election 
and  call.  In  his  concept,  the  "  election,"  in  the  plan  of  God,  and 
the  consequent  "call"  at  most,  involved  not  an  absolute  decree, 


ROMANS  I,  7.  71 

bat  only  religious  privileges  or  opportunities  for  salvation  ;  and 
they  embraced  not  any  particular  individuals,  or  any  specific 
nation,  but  provisionally  the  w^hole  world,  the  Gentiles  as  v^'ell  as 
the  Jews,  and  both  on  equal  terms.  And  so  the  apostle  counts 
the  Gentile  world,  as  well  as  the  Jewish  world,  God's  "elect" 
(Rom,  viii,  33),  and  God's  "called"  (Rom.  viii,  28).  In  this  verse 
ho  salutes  the  Romans  as  "  Christ's  called." 

Verse  7.  To  all  that  are  in  Rome,  God's  beloved, 
called,  saints:  Grace  to  you,  and  peace,  from  God  our 
Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  words  are  not  to  be  translated  "  called  to  be  saints,"  that 
is,  "summoned  to  become  saints,"  as  if  they  were  not  such 
already;  nor  do  they  mean  "named  [designated]  saints,"  as  if 
this  were  a  title  or  application  conferred  on  them  as  we  now  name 
the  writer  of  this  epistle  "Saint  Paul."  The  adjective  kXtitSs, 
"  called,"  never  has  the  sense  of  "  named  ;"  it  designates  the  rela- 
tion in  which  the  Romans,  and  all  the  Gentile  world,  already 
stood  to  the  gospel  scheme.  The  Romans  are  "God's  called." 
The  last  three  words  of  the  first  clause  are  to  be  taken  as  substan- 
tives appositive  to  the  word  "all."  But  Paul's  use  of  these 
descriptive  words  shows  that  he  probably  has  on  the  surface  of  his 
thought  only  the  Christian  believers,  not  the  great  mass  of  the 
Roman  population,  who  were  still  heathen.  Yet  with  Paul's 
large  conception  of  the  gospel  scheme,  and  of  his  own  universal 
mission,  he  could,  if  his  argument  required  it  here,  as  it  does  else- 
where, have  applied  those  words  iJotentially  to  all  men,  not  in 
Rome  only,  but  in  the  whole  world.  In  the  Old  Dispensation  the 
Jews,  standing  in  special  relations,  holding  special  privileges, 
were  all,  without  exception,  deemed  and  named,  "God's  be- 
loved" (Psa.  Ix,  5),  "God's  elect"  (Isa.  xliii,20),  "God's  called" 
(Isa.  xlviii.  12),  "God's  saints,"  "a  holy  nation"  (Ex.  xix,  6), 
"a  holy  people"  (Deut.  vii,  6),  "  his  anointed"  (Psa.  cv,  15)  ;  so, 
now,  in  the  New  Dispensation,  these  relations  and  privileges  were 
extended  to  all  the  race.  All  men,  and  not  tlie  Jews  only,  are 
constructively  and  potentially  "God's  beloved,  called,  saints." 
Yet  neither  the  former  reckoning  nor  the  latter  implies  that  the 
persons  severally  included  in  the  count  were  therefore  ethically 
right,  or  were,  therefore,  all  to  be  saved.  The  terms  used  simply 
imply  that  men  are  brought  into  uniform  and  universal  relations  to 
God  and  to  the  gospel  scheme,  whereby  their  salvation  is  possible. 


72  EXPOSITION. 

The  word  saints,  by  its  derivation,  and  by  its  constant  use 
in  the  Scriptures,  means  "  consecrated,"  set  a])art  for  special  ends  ; 
and  it  does  not  usually,  and  certainly  does  not  here,  connote  that 
the  persons  so  named  liad  "already  attained  or  were  already  per- 
fect." Above  all,  it  does  not  mean  that  they  were  pre-eminently 
holy,  impeccant  if  not  impeccable.  The  last  sense  of  the  word 
saint,  which  is  now  tlie  current  sense  of  the  word  in  Enj^lish,  is  one 
of  the  legacies  of  mediivval  superstition,  which  looked  back  to  the 
apostolic  Church  as  if  peculiarly  holy,  lifted  above  the  level  of  the 
Church  of  after  days.  But  such,  alas !  was  not  the  fact.  Paul  con- 
stantly addresses  the  Churches  of  his  day  as  "  saints,"  "  sanctified," 
"holy  brethren,"  "elect  and  holy  unto  the  Lord;"  yet  the  data 
given  in  his  Epistles  show  that  these  very  Churches  had  often,  if 
not  always,  a  very  low  state  of  Christian  experience  and  attainment. 
Certainly  there  are  few  evangelical  Churches  in  our  days  that 
are  not  of  higher  type,  in  both  doctrine  and  practice,  than  the 
Churches  to  which  our  apostle  preached  and  wrote.  Christians 
nowadays  are  better  than  they,  because  of  the  tendency  of  the 
gospel  to  lift  men.  By  its  transforming  power  it  leads  not  only 
to  outward  consecration,  but  to  the  highest  type  of  inward  sanc- 
tification. 

Grace  to  you,  and  peace.  This  is  Paul's  constant  saluta- 
tion to  the  Churches.  The  [irimary  meaning  of  c/racr  is  "  favoi*." 
It  involves  both  the  divine  benevolence  and  the  divine  beneficence: 
benignity  felt  towards  the  undeserving,  and  practical  kindness 
shown  to  them.  Perhaps  this  is  the  utmost  meaning  of  the  word 
here;  but  it  sometinies  takes  on  an  added  note  of  efficacious  help, 
of  spiritual  empowerment  for  godly  living.  "  Grace  "  is  God's  love 
ri'vealed  to  us  ;  "  peace  "  is  the  inner  trantiuillity  that  comes  from 
the  consciousness  of  Crod's  approval.  "  Justified  from  faith,  we 
have  peace  with  God." 

From  God  the  Father  of  us  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Such  is  the  literal  translation  of  those  oft  recurrent  words.  What 
do  they  mean?  The  conjunction  a»(i  may  grammatically  connect 
the  words  ?/.t  and  Lord,  putting  both  words  under  the  regimen  of 
the  preposition  of:  "  From  God,  the  Father  of  us  and  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Such  is  the  Socinian  interpretation.  Or,  the  eon- 
junction  and  may  grammatically  connect  the  woi*ds  God  and  Lord, 
|)utting  both  woi*ds  under  the  regimen  of  the  preposition  from  : 
"  From  God  tlie  Father  of  us,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
Such  is  tlie  orthodox  interjiretation.     Botli  are  grammatical  ;  both 


ROMANS  I,  8.  73 

make  perfect  sense.  Which  was  Paul's  meaning?  In  Titus  i,  4, 
and  in  2  Tim.  i,  2,  he  uses  the  same  salutation  as  liere,  omitting 
the  woi-ds  "of  us."  But  in  those  passages  the  Socinian  inter- 
pretation can  not  liold:  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  co- 
ordinatedlby  the  preposition  from,  as  the  common  source  of  the 
blessings  pronounced.  Equally  in  the  longer  passages,  including, 
as  here,  the  words  "of  us,"  the  orthodox  view  must  be  held  as 
the  only  one  intended  by  the  apostle:  "Grace  and  peace  from 
God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist."  The  incidental , 
yet  conclusive  testimony  here  to  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  is  as 
clear  and  satisfactory  as  in  the  explicit  affirmations  of  the  Gospel 
of  John,  or  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

Verse  8.  First,  indeed,  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  you  all;  because  your  faith  is  reported  in  the 
whole  world. 

With  these  complimentary  words,  Paul  comes  easily  and 
gracefully  to  the  declaration  of  his  regards  for  the  believers  at 
Rome.  He  has  never  visited  the  Church,  but  he  knows  many  of 
the  brethren  personally,  and  others  he  knows  of  by  name.  The 
second  clause,  with  the  translation  because,  instead  of  "  that,"  '■ 
expresses  the  ground  of  his  thanksgiving,  because  their  faith  is 
proclaimed  throughout  the  world. 

The  words,  "your  faith  is  reported  in  the  whole  world," 
are  doubtless  a  rhetorical  exaggeration,  like  the  one  in  John 
xxi,  25;  yet  it  was  not  extravagant,  for  already  the  gospel  had 
been  carried  to  all  parts  of  the  Roman  world,  and  to  regions 
outside.  (1  Pet.  iv,  13.)  Christian  converts  from  "all  the  world" 
brought  to  their  homes  the  news  of  Pentecost ;  and  Paul  himself, 
in  the  first  twenty  years  of  his  ministry,  had  already  (A.  D.  58), 
"fully  preached  the  gospel  from  Jerusalem,  and  in  a  circuit  as 
far  as  Illyricum."  (Rom.  xv,  9.)  Five  or  six  years  later  he  was 
able  to  say  to  the  Colossians:  "The  gospel  which  ye  heard  was 
preached  in  the  whole  creation  under  heaven."  (Col.  i,  23.)  Thus 
within  one  generation  after  Paul  had  begun  his  mission  to  the 
Gentiles,  Christ's  last  command  was  approximately  fulfilled.  The 
congregation  in  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  was  largely  made 
ui)  of  accessions  from  these  provincial  Churches,  and  was  certainly 
widely  known;  so  that  Paul  could  say:  "Your  obedience  has 
come  abroad  unto  all  men."     (Rom.  xvi,  19.) 

*The  Greek  word  Uri  has  this  double  force.    For  a  similar  ambiguity. 
see  Rom.  viil,  21. 


74  EXPOSITION. 

Verses  9,  10.  For  God  is  my  witness,  whom  I  serve  in 
my  spirit  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  how^  unceasingly  I  make 
mention  of  you,  alw^ays  in  my  prayers  making  request 
if  somehow,  now,  at  length,  I  shall  be  brought  on  my 
way  in  the  will  of  God,  to  come  unto  you. 

The  first  woi-ds  here,  God  is  my  witness,  is  Paul's  custom- 
ary and  solemn  attestation  of  some  grave  fact  known  only  to 
himself.  Such  ai)i)eals  to  God  were  not  unusual  with  him  on 
momentous  occasions.  Thus  he  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I  call 
God  for  a  witness  upon  my  soul"  (2 Cor.  i,23);  to  the  Philippians 
he  says,  "  God  is  my  witness  how  I  long  for  you  all."  (Phil,  i,  8.) 
Such  asseverations  in  the  name  of  God  are  not  flippant  oaths,  like 
those  forbidden  by  Christ:  "Swear  not  at  all."  (Matt,  v,  34.) 
Indeed,  Christ  himself  recognized  the  obligation  of  judicial  oaths 
(Matt,  xxvi,  63,  64)  ;  and  even  God  is  represented  as  confirming  his 
woi"ds,  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath:  "As  he  could  swear  by  no 
greater,  he  swore  by  himself."  (Heb.  vi,  13.)  "As  I  live,  says 
Jehovah,  I  swear*  that  to  me  every  knee  shall  bow."  (Rom.  xiv,  11.) 
And  Paul  confirmed  his  ow'n  assertions  under  the  sanction  of  an 
oath:  "  I  die  daily,  I  swear*  it  by  my  boast  in  you  "  (1  Cor.  xv,31) ; 
"  Behold,  before  God  I  swear*  that  I  lie  not"  (Gal.  i,  20). 

Verses  11,  12.  For  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart 
to  you  some  spiritual  gift,  with  a  view  to  your  being 
established ;  but  that  is,  to  my  being  comforted  w^ith  you, 
while  among  you,  through  our  faith,  both  yours  and  mine, 
in  each  other. 

The  sj)iritual  gifts  to  which  Paul  alludes,  the  miraculous 
Charisms  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  are  enumerated  and  discussed 
in  the  twelfth  chai)ter  of  First  Corinthians :  "  Wisdom,  knowledge, 
faith,  healings,  miracles,  prophecj',  discerning  of  spirits,  tongues, 
interpretations,  all  works  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  wlio  divides 
to  each  one,  severally,  even  as  he  will."  Tliese  endowments  were 
conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  apostles  (Acts 
xix,  6)  ;  and  their  exercise  was  either  for  a  sign  to  those  that  were 
without,  or  for  the  edification  and  confirmation  of  the  Church. 
It  was  with  a  view  to  the  latter,  that  Paul  desired  to  impart  to  the 
Romans  some  such  gift.  We  do  not  know  what  special  gift  he 
purposed,  if,  indeed,  he  had  any  definite  gift  in  thought;  but  it 

*Thf  form  of  the  Greek  sentence  Implies  these  words. 


ROMANS  I.  IS.  t^ 

was  probably  one  of  the  first  named  above,  specifically  to  this  end, 
that  ye  may  be  established.  But  this  blessing  to  them  was  not 
the  whole  of  the  apostle's  hope  ;  he  hoped  also  to  receive  a  personal 
blessing  through  his  communion  with  them;  "But  if  you  be  es- 
tablished, it  is  that  I,  too,  while  among  you,  may  be  comforted 
with  you,  through  our  faith  [confidence],  both  yours  and  mme,  in 
each  other  "  But  the  apostle,  in  this  wish,  was  not  thmkmg  of 
present  refreshment  only  (Rom.  xv,  32) ;  he  was  looking  forward 
to  his  purposed  journey  to  Spain;  "I  hope,  passing  through 
Rome,  on  my  way  to  Spain,  to  visit  you,  and  by  you  to  be  sent 
forward  thither,  if,  first,  I  have  my  fill,  in  some  measure,  ^^uth 
your  society."  (Rom.  xv,  24.)  He  longed  to  visit  Rome,  but 
Rome  was  not  the  ultimate  point  of  his  journey ;  it  would  serve 
only  as  a  new  point  of  departure  for  yet  wider  and  greater  con- 
quests in  the  distant  West.* 

Verse  13.  But  I  would  that  you  be  not  ignorant,  breth- 
ren that  ofttimes  I  proposed  to  come  unto  you,  and  was 
hindered  hitherto,  that  I  may  have  some  fruit  among  you 
also,  even  as  also  among  the  rest  of  the  Gentiles. 

In  similar  circumstances,  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  Paul 
used  another  word:  "  In  this  trust,  I  wished  to  come  unto  you." 
(2  Cor  i  15  )  The  expressions  are  in  effect  synonymous.  But 
the  apostle  immediately  adds  :  I  was  hindered  until  now.  The 
hindrances  we  may  readily  believe  to  have  been  the  more  urgent 
calls  of  duty  to  tarry  in  the  East;  or,  possibly,' some  over-ruling 
providences,  such  as  once  before  drove  him  toward  the  West, 
when  he  himself  desired  to  go  East :  "  The  Spirit  of  Jesus  did  not 
permit  him  to  go  into  Bithynia."     (Acts  xvi,  7.) 

Paul  wishes:  That  I  may  have  some  fruit  among  you 
also  as  also  among  the  remaining  Gentiles.  Wherever  he 
journeyed  he  found  colonies  of  his  own  countrymen,  and  syna- 
gogues- and  his  first  preaching  was  always  in  the  synagogues.  In 
these  he  had  two  sorts  of  hearers,  Jews  and  devout  Gentiles.  The 
latter  w^ere  men  who  had  accepted  the  Jewish  faith  without  submit- 
ting to  circumcision.    Of  these  two  classes  of  hearers,  the  Jews  usu- 

*  It  was  three  years  before  Paul  saw  Rome;  and  he  came  there  only  as 
a  urisoner,  and  for  two  years  longer  remained  under  surveillance,  in  his 
owrHred  house.  Then,  after  those  five  years,  he  Is  said  to  have  carried 
out  his  purpose  (perhaps  not  Immediately)  of  visiting  Spain.  Euseblus. 
Eccl.  Hist.,  II,  xxil,  2. 


76  EXlK)SITION. 

ally  rejected  the  gospel,  because  jt  was  too  liberal  for  them;  but 
the  Gentiles,  for  the  same  reason,  invariably  gave  it  a  grateful 
and  ready  acceptance.  Thus,  at  Iconium,  "  Paul  entered  into  the 
isynngogui'  of  tlu'  Jews,  and  so  spoke  that  a  great  multitude  both 
uf  Jews  and  of  Greeks  [Gentiles]  believed"  (Acts  xiv,  1);  and, 
again,  at  Thessalonica,  "  Paul  went  into  the  synagogue,  as  was  his 
wont,  and  reasoned  with  them  from  the  Scriptures;  .  .  .  and 
some  [Jews]  were  persuaded,  and  of  the  devout  Greeks  a  great 
multitude"  (Acts  xvii,  2).  These  converts  became  the  nucleuses 
of  Christian  congregations,  which  then  were  built  up  by  further 
converts  directly  from  the  unbelieving  Gentiles.  The  expression, 
"Among  yon,  as  among  the  other  Gentiles,"  shows  that  the  Roman 
Church  was  preponderantly  Gentile.  The  i)roper  names  in  the 
salutations,  in  chai)ter  xvi,  are  mostly  Gentile,  thougli  there  was 
also  a  Jewish  element. 

Verse  14.  I  am  debtor  both  to  Greeks  and  to  Barbar- 
ians, both  to  wise  men  and  to  ignorant. 

This  classification  of  the  human  race  has  respect  rather  to  tlie 
various  culture,  or  social  condition  of  men,  than  to  their  nation- 
alities. It  was,  originally,  a  Greek  designation  for  themselves  on 
the  one  hand,  and  for  the  rest  of  tl\e  world  on  tlie  other.  All 
who  were  not  Greek  were  barbarian;  that  is,  foreign,  not  bar- 
hnrous,  as  the  Persians,  the  Romans,  the  Jews.  After  Alex- 
ander's time,  B.  C.  323,  the  Greek  language,  the  language  of 
culture,  became  cosmopolitan,  and  the  word  Greeks  began  to 
denote  the  great  civilized,  dominant  races.  After  tlie  conquest 
of  Greece  by  the  Romans,  B.  C.  148,  the  Greek  language  and  cul- 
ture largely  prevailed  at  Rome.  Captive  Greece  captured  its 
fierce  victor,*  and  the  Romans,  from  this  point  of  view,  were 
classed,  as  Paul  classed  them,  as  "Greeks"  (just  as,  later,  in  the 
times  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  the  Greeks,  for  political  consid- 
erations, reversing  the  names,  called  themselves  "Romaic"). 
Thenceforwai-d,  the  word  barbarians  denoted  all  the  uncivilized 
world  besides.  In  this  grouping  of  the  Gentiles,  the  Jews  are,  for 
the  moment,  left  out  of  sight ;  but  they  come  into  view  in  the 
seventeenth  verse,  where,  from  the  Jewish  standpoint,  all  the 
world  is  divided  into  Jews  and  Greeks. 


*"QriBclacaptii  fcruui  victorein  ceplt,"    Hor.  Ep.  II,  1,  156. 


ROMANS  I.    1.5,  16.  77 

Verse  15.  Thus,  as  for  me,  I  would  fain  preach  the 
gospel  to  you  also,  that  are  in  Rome. 

Paul  held  the  world  as  his  parish.  In  this  aspect  of  his  work, 
that  he  is  under  equal  obligations  to  all  men,  he  declares  that  he 
is  eager  to  carry  the  gospel  to  the  high  places  of  the  earth,  to  cul- 
tivated people  as  well  as  to  uncultivated.  Though  Rome  is  the 
capital  of  the  world,  the  center  of  power,  and  wisdom,  and  juris- 
prudence, yet,  the  apostle  confident  in  the  power,  and  wisdom, 
and  righteousness  of  the  gospel,  longs  for  the  opportunity  to  carry 
his  luessage  even  to  this  seat  of  all  that  is  greatest  in  the  insti- 
tutions of  man.     He  is  not  ashamed  of  his  message. 

Verse  16.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel ;  for  it 
is  God's  power  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  has  faith  ; 
both  to  Jew,  first,  and  to  Greek. 

The  first  clause  is  not  an  allusion  to  the  popular  opprobrium 
that  early  attached  to  the  gospel  of  the  Man  of  Calvary ;  as  when 
Peter  says,  "  If  any  one  suffer  as  [on  the  charge  of  being]  a 
'  Christian,'  let  him  not  be  ashamed."  (1  Pet.  iv,  16.)  Nay,  Paul 
declared  that  the  ignominy  of  his  Master's  death  was  the  ground 
of  his  boasting:  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  boast  save  in  the  cross 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  vi,  14.)  But  on  the  contrary, 
what  he  means  here  to  say  is,  that  he  is  not  ashamed  of  the 
gospel  by  reason  of  any  inadequacy  in  it  to  save  man,  and  to  save 
all  men.  It  can  save  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  There  are  no  lim- 
itations in  its  gracious  proffers  to  mankind.  While  Judaism,  did 
not  claim  to  be  a  message  of  peace  to  the  world  at  large,  and 
even  debarred  from  its  communion  all  who  were  not  circumcised  ; 
the  gospel  on  the  other  hand  claimed  the  world  as  its  own,  and 
invited  the  world  to  its  fold.  Paul  counts  it  a  gospel  to  the  Gen- 
tiles especially.  It  is  in  this  light  that  he  declares  that  he  is  not 
ashamed  of  the  gospel.  He  can  look  man  in  the  face  without 
blushing  for  God,  for  the  gospel,  or  for  himself,  as  its  herald,  as 
he  proclaims  the  divine  even-handed  justice,  in  giving  every  man, 
Gentile  as  well  as  Jew,  an  equal  chance  for  salvation.  The  word 
every  man  expresses  the  scope  of  the  gospel  plan.  Unlike  Jewish 
exclusivism,  or  Calvinistic  particularism,  the  gospel  compasses 
the  whole  race,  and  every  man  of  the  race.  All  are  redeemed, 
all  may  be  saved ;  not  as  the  Jews  thought,  and  arrogated  to 
themselves,  by  obeying  the  law,  which  no  man  can  do;  but  on 


78  EXPOSITION. 

the  simple'condition  of  having  faiili  in  Christ,  which  every  man 
can  do. 

In  the  words  both  to  Jew,  first,  and  to  Greek,  we 
have  the  Jewish  classification  of  men,  just  as  in  verse  14  we 
have  the  Greek.  The  Jews  grouped  all  outside  the  chosen 
race  as  "  the  nations,"  "  the  heathen,"  "  the  Gentiles ;"  of  whom 
one  of  the  foremost  races,  "  the  Greeks,"  is  here  put  for  all. 
The  word  "first"  does  not  express  preference;  but  is  merely  a 
chronological  date.  Paul,  unlike  his  countrymen,  counted  all 
men  equal  before  God,  equal  in  their  inherent  rights  in  the 
provisions  of  the  gospel ;  and  by  this  word  "  first,"*  he  merely 
recognizes  the  earlier  historic  call  of  the  Jews  to  the  privileges  of 
organized  Church  fellowship:  "  First  [firstly]  indeed  because  they 
were  intrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God."  (Rom.  iii,  2.)  As,  in 
the  patriarclial  days,  the  divine  election  and  call  came  first  to 
Abraham,  and  to  Israel,  and  to  the  Jews,  though  not  for  them- 
selves only,  but  only  provisionally,  and  in  trust  for  the  rest  of 
mankind,  so  now,  the  gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  the  Jews  first, 
not  because  of  a  higher  right,  but  because  their  prior  knowledge 
of  God  put  them  in  advance  of  the  heathen  world.  So  Christ 
commanded  to  begin  at  Jerusalem ;  so  Paul  always  began  at  the 
synagogue.  It  was  merely  good  policy  to  build  on  a  foundation 
already  laid. 

Verse  17.  For  in  it  is  revealed  God's  [plan  of]  justifi- 
cation from  faith,  with  a  view  to  faith ;  as  it  has  been 
written:  "But  the  just  from  faith  will  live  [have  life]." 
(Hab.  ii,  4.) 

This  much-controverted  verse  is  the  introduction  to  the  dis- 
cussion in  the  epistle ;  but  it  is  not,  as  so  commonly  held,  a  state- 
ment of  the  great  theme  of  the  epistle.  The  fundaijaental  thesis 
which  Paul  discusses  is  really  found  in  the  question:  "Is  God 
God  of  Jews  only?  is  he  not  God  of  Gentiles  also?"  (Rom. 
iii,  29.)  The  apostle  proposes,  as  his  main  purpose,  to  discuss 
against  the  assumption  of  the  .Tews,  the  question,  "Who  then 
may  be  saved?"  But,  first  of  all,  yet  only  as  incident  to  this 
main   purpose,  he   needs   to  discuss    the    other   grave    question, 


*"  First"  Is  ail  adverb,  as  If  with  the  i-onseiit  of  the  Dictionaries  we 
iiilfj;ht  .say  '•  tlrstly."  FVir  a  slinllar  aiiihigulty  In  this  word,  see  1  Thess. 
iv,  16.  "The  dead  in  Christ  will  rl.se  flr.st  [firstly];"  that  Is,  not  they,  the 
first  ones,  but  this  as  the  first  act.  or,  "  In  the  first  place." 


ROMANS  I,  17.  79 

"  How  [on  what  basis]  may  men  be  saved?"    This  latter  question 
is  the  one  that  emerges  in  this  verse. 

The  passage  opens  with  the  logical  conjunction  for,  whose 
connection  and  importance  in  Paul's  argumentation  is  not  always 
duly  apprehended.  We  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  call  atten- 
tion to  it.  Notice  the  connection  here  ;  the  word  "  for"  refers  to 
the  words  "every  man"  in  the  previous  verse.  The  gospel  is 
God's  power  unto  salvation  to  every  man,  whether  Jew  or  Greek ; 
to  EVERY  man,  I  say;  for  in  it  is  revealed  God's  method  of  jus- 
tification ;  not  as  the  Jews  thought  from  works  of  law,  which  are 
possible  to  no  man,  but  from  faith,  which  is  possible  for  all  men. 
Nevertheless,  though  this  verse  is  not  the  thesis  of  the  epistle, 
its  several  terms,  in  words  and  phrases,  are  the  most  important 
in  the  epistle,  and  in  the  apostle's  theology;  justification, 
"  God's  way  of  justification,"  faith,  just  from  faith,  with  a  view 
to  faith,  Ufe,  and  will  have  life.  On  the  proper  understanding 
of  these  terms  turns  the  exegesis  of  the  epistle  and  a  consistent 
exposition  of  "  Paul's  gospel." 

The  Greek  word,*  here  correctly  translated  justification,  is  al- 
ways represented,  or,  rather,  misrepresented,  in  the  Authorized 
and  Revised  Versions  of  Paul's  Epistles,  by  the  word  righteousness. 
This  English  word  is  an  unfortunate  rendering;  indeed,  in  these 
Epistles,  it  never  expresses  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word ;  and, 
therefore,  can  never  come  into  the  line  of  the  apostle's  thought 
and  argument.  This  English  word,  "  righteousness,"  is  a  term  of 
ethical  significance,  and  is  synonymous,  or  almost  synonymous,  in 
popular  apprehension,  and  in  theological  acceptation,  with  the 
word  ''holiness."  It  always  involves  the  notion  of  character,  of 
upright  life  and  affections.  Consistently  with  this  notion,  and 
correctly,  Webster's  Dictionary  defines  the  word  "  righteous- 
ness" as /loZiness,  ptfr%;  and  adds  the  remark:  "Righteousness, 
as  used  in  Scripture  and  theology,  in  which  it  chiefly  occurs,  is 
nearly  equivalent  to  holiness,  comprehending  holy  principles,  and 
affections  of  heart,  and  conformity  of  life  to  the  divine  law." 
This  definition  of  the  English  word  "  righteousness"  will  be  gen- 
erally accepted  by  English  scholars  as  exhaustive  and  correct. 
And,  with  this  sense,  the  word  "  righteousness"  does  not  express 
the  sense  of  the  apostle's  Greek  word.     In  Paul's  writing,  if  not 


*  AiKaioffijvTi ;  found  thirty-four  times  In  Romans,  twenty-four  times  In 
the  other  Pauline  epistles. 


80  EXPnSTTTOX. 

elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Greek  word  is  a  legal  or 
forensic  term,  exclusively.  It  does  not  mean  righteousness,  that  is, 
approved  moral  character,  or  "holiness  ;"  but  it  means  justification, 
that  is,  exculpation  from  guilt,  or  right-standing,  before  the  law. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  significance  once  of  the  English 
word  "  righteoHS)u'ss,"-  it  clearly  does  not  now  express  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  word  in  this  epistle ;  and  it  is  unfortunate  that 
it  should  have  been  perpetuated  in  our  translations  of  the  Bible. 
No  reader  ever  gets  out  of  this  English  word  the  right  sense  of  the 
Pauline  passages  in  which  it  stands,  or  ever  apprehends  Paul's  line 
of  argument.  Most  commentators,  with  a  consciousness  that  the 
English  word  is  not  an  adequate  equivalent  of  the  Greek  word, 
realize  the  need  of  large  explanation  of  the  word  ;  but  unfortunately 
their  explanations  do  not  explain.  It  is  difficult  even  for  a  verbal 
expert  or  a  theological  athlete  to  wrest  an  ethical  term  to  express 
a  forensic  concept.  But  Paul's  Greek  word  was  a  commonplace 
in  the  vocabulary  of  the  synagogue,  and  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  his  day.  It  expressed  to  all  hearers  a  forensic  notion,  and  once 
apprehended  did  not  need  long  discourse  to  explain  it.  Nor,  if  our 
English  Bible  gave  the  proper  English  equivalent  of  the  Greek 
word  in  these  sixty  passages,  would  commentators,  nowadays, 
need  to  waste  their  effort  in  giving  (as  most  of  them  do),  a  wholly 
mistaken  exegesis  of  the  passages. 

Paul's  Greek  word,  for  which  justification  is  the  exact  English 
equivalent,  expresses  in  Paul's  writings,  either,  first,  the  divine 
way  of  justifying  the  sinner,  that  is,  of  acquitting  him  from  his 
guilt;  or,  secondly,  the  resultant  state  of  justification,  or  acquit- 
tance from  guilt.  Both  senses  frequently  occur ;  and  both  are 
found  in  the  passage,  "  To  him  that  has  faith  on  God  who  justi- 
fies the  ungodly  man,  his  faith  is  reckoned  unto  justification." 
(Rom.  iv,  5.)  It  is  with  these  meanings,  these  only,  of  the  word, 
that  we  can  keep  in  touch  with  Paul's  line  of  thought  or  argument. 


*Tho  Greek  word  was  translated  by  Wyclif,  and  by  Tyndale,  by  the 
old  word  "  Rlghtwlseness,"  which  was  the  only  purely  Saxon  word  they 
could  command  for  the  Greek  "  Si/catoo-i/j/i?,"  or  tlie  Latin  "  justiflcatio." 
This  word  meant  "  right-ways-ness,"  right-standing  with  the  law.  The 
second  syllable  In  "right-ifise-ness"  lias  no  connection  with  the  adjec- 
tive "wise;"  but  Is  the  adverbial  element  found  in  "  likeicjV,"  and  in 
"aUvays."  The  word  has  been  perpetuated  In  the  English  Bible,  a  little 
changed  In  form,  but  completely  warped  in  signification.  So  that,  unfor- 
tunately for  English  readers,  and  for  theological  teaching,  the  word  "right- 
eousness," instead  of  being  a  version,  is  now  a  perversion  of  the  apostle's 
meaning. 


ROMANS  I,  11.  81 

It  is  certainly  one  of  the  remarkable  literary  infelicities  of 
the  current  English  translations  of  the  Bible,  followed  by  commen- 
tators and  theological  writers,  that  Paul's  Greek  verb  hiKaiovv, 
"justify,"  which  occurs  fifteen  times  in  this  epistle,  and  twelve 
times  in  his  other  epistles,  should  always  be  translated  by  the 
correct  word  "  to  justify ;"  and,  at  the  same  time  (and  often  in 
the  same  sentence,  as  in  the  instance  quoted  just  above),  the 
substantive  hiKo-ioaiiv-q,  "justification,"  cognate  with  the  verb  in 
derivation  and  meaning,  should  never,  out  of  sixty  instances,  be 
translated  by  the  correct  word,  "  justification,"  or  by  some  equiv- 
alent forensic  term,  as  pardon,  forgiveness,  acquittal,  but  always 
by  "  righteousness,"  a  purely  ethical  term. 

Paul's  Greek  vocabulary  was  sufficiently  large  and  discrimi- 
nated in  meaning  to  express  his  doctrinal  concepts  definitely 
and  distinctly.  We  need  not  go  astray 'in  tracing  his  thoughts. 
Paul  used  the  words  "  just,"  "  justification,"  "  to  justify,"*  always 
as  forensic  terms,  expressing  the  relation  of  men  to  the  law  of 
rewards  and  penalties.  He  used  the  words  "  holy,"  "  holiness," 
or,  "  sanctification,"  "to  sanctify,"!  as  ethical  terms,  expressing 
character,  moral  condition.  And  he  never  confounded  the  words 
of  the  two  groups. 

But  there  is  a  striking  fact  in  the  statistics  of  the  apostle's  use 
of  the  two  groups.  Of  the  forensic  words  "justification"  and 
"  justify,"  there  are  fifty-one  instances  in  this  epistle ;  of  the 
ethical  words  "sanctification"  and  "sanctify"  (or  "holiness"), 
there  are  twelve  instances.  The  explanation  of  the  disparity  is 
simple.  Paul's  sole  aiin  in  the  epistle  leads  him  to  the  forensic 
line  of  thought;  this  occupies  the  entire  field.  His  references  to 
ethical  points  are  incidental,  few,  and  brief ;  and  might  be  omitted 
without  disturbing  his  argument. 

The  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  properly  understood, 
clearly  discriminates  justification  fi-om  righteousness  (or  holiness, 
or  sanctification).  But  the  distinction  has  not  always  been  under- 
stood by  theologians,  or  indicated  or  vindicated  in  their  systems. 
Confusion  of  thought  in  their  theological  systems  and  discussions, 
easily  follows  hard  upon  the  confusion  of  the  Scriptural  terms. 
Jerome's  Vulgate  *  (A.  D.  400)  translated  the  Greek  word  for 
"justification"  sometimes  by  "  justitia,"  and  sometimes  by 
"  justificatio."  The  first  word,  which  is  quite  classical,  was  not  so 
much  a  mistranslation  as, it  was  equivocal;  for  it  might  have  the 


6 


82  EXPOSITIOX. 

correct  forensic  sense.  But  later  on,  AuRustine  (A.  D.  430),  who 
did  not  road  Groeiv,  misunderstood  "  juatitiu"  as  meaning  "just- 
ness "  ethically,  that  is,  a  regenerate  state  ;  and  not,  or  not  merely, 
tlie  forensic  net  of  justification,  that  is,  the  judicial  paitlon  of  sin  ; 
and  he  adopted  tliis  ethical  sense  in  his  theological  writings.  The 
Catholic  Church  MCcept(Hl  Augustine's  views;  and  the  Council  of 
Trent  says:  "Justification  is  not  the  mere  remission  of  sins,  but 
also  sanctification  and  renewal  of  the  inner  man."  (Session  vi, 
Chap,  vii.)  This  misunderstanding  of  the  word  leads  to  a  mis- 
conception of  the  plan  of  justification  in  theodicy,  and  of  its  place 
in  theology.  All  the  Pauline  usage  of  the  word  is  against  the 
Catholic  extension  of  its  signification.  It  means  "  remission  of 
sin,"  that  is,  acquittance  from  the  guilt  of  sin  ;  and  it  never  means 
cleansing  from  the  stain  of  sin;  it  never  means  regeneration;  it 
never  means  righteousness. 

Now,  in  the  text  before  us,  the  woi-d  used  is  "  justification," — 
"God's  [plan  of]  justification."  God's  way  of  justifying  sinners 
from  faith  as  contradistinguished  from  the  Jew's  scheme  of  justi- 
fication fi'om  works.  We  should  emphasize  the  word  God's  here. 
It  is  not,  as  the  English  translations  give  it,  "  the  righteousness  of 
God,"  in  any  possible  sense  of  that  word,  or  of  that  phrase.  It  is 
not,  subjectively,  God's  personal  righteousness,  the  eternal,  ethical 
atti'ibute  of  his  character.  That  the  apostle's  expression  here, 
can  not  mean  "the  righteousness  of  God,"  his  inherent  personal 
attribute,  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  his  phraseology,  for  the  same 
concept  as  here,  is  sometimes  different.  In  Phil.  iii,9  we  have  the 
expression:  "  the  justification /rojn  God,"  *  where,  of  course,  the 
sense  can  not  be  "God's  righteousness."  Nor,  again,  is  it  God's 
judicial  rectitude,  or  right-dealing;  for  this  meaning  will  not  suit 
the  context.  It  is,  objectively,  God's  eternal  scheme,  or  provision, 
for  dealing,  when  the  exigency  arose,  with  the  problem  of  man's 
sin  and  recovery  ;  it  is  his  "  plan  of  justification  "  t  for  fallen  men, 
which  he  devised  of  old,  "  having  found  a  ransom."  (Jobxxxiii,  24.) 

This  is  the  sense  of  the  word  everywhere  in  Paul's  epistles. 

*  rijv  iK  0eov  SiKaioaimtP. 

tWesloy,  In  his  "Notes  on  the  New  Testament,"  wrlten  In  17.54,  had 
not  yet  caught  the  apostle's  concept,  nnd  misled  by  the  English  word 
"righteousness,"  stumbled  In  his  explanation  of  this  verse;  but  eight  years 
later,  In  1762,  he  wrote:  "I  believe  the  expression  'Righteousness  of  God' 
means  God's  method  of  justifying  sinners,  as  in  Rom.  1,  17:  '  For  therein  la 
the  righteousness  of  God  revealed;'  that  Is,  his  way  of  justifying  sinners." 
"Thoughts  on  Imputed  Righteousness."    Works,  Vol.  VI,  101. 


ROMANS  I,  11.  83 

It  is,  for  example,  the  only  possible  sense  of  the  word  in  another 
passage  in  this  epistle:  "  For  the  Jews  ignoring  God's  plan  of  jus- 
tification [from  faith],  and  seeking  to  establish  tlieir  own  j)]an  of 
justification  [from  works],  did  not  submit  themselves  to  God's  plan 
of  justification."  (Rom.  x,  3.)  So  also,  Paul  wrote  to  the  Philip- 
pians  words  even  more  explicit,  to  the  same  effect:  "  That  I  may 
be  found  in  Christ,  not  having  a  justification  of  my  own,  the  one 
from  Law ;  but  the  justification  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  justi- 
fication from  God,  upon  the  ground  of  faith."  (Phil,  iii,  9.) 
This,  too,  is  the  only  possible  sense  of  the  word  in  another  pas- 
sage where  the  contrast  between  KaraKpiffis  "condemnation,"  and 
SiKaioffvv-q  compels  us  to  give  the  latter  the  sense  of  "justifica- 
tion:" "  If  the  dispensation  of  condemnation  was  glorious,  much 
rather  does  the  dispensation  of  justification  abound  in  glory." 
(2  Cor.  iii,  9.) 

This  then,  this  only,  is  what  this  word  "justification"  ex- 
pressed to  the  synagogue,  and  to  the  apostle  Paul,  and  to  the 
primitive  Christian  Church.  The  concept  lies  at  the  very  basis  of 
all  religious  tliought  the  world  over.  There  is  among  men  a  uni- 
versal sense  of  demerit,  and  a  universal  anxiety  to  be  acquit  from 
guilt.  This  feeling  of  ill-desert  and  of  guilt  may  in  some  instances 
be  vague  ;  but  it  exists  even  among  the  lowest  savages.  And  in 
proportion  as  men  have  clearer  ethical  ideas,  the  feeling  of  con- 
demnation grows  clearer  and  stronger,  and  the  solicitude  for  relief 
more  urgent.  Men  everywhere  are  religious  for  this,  one  end. 
The  great  question  of  all  religions,  the  false  i-eligions  as  well  as  the 
true,  is  embodied  in  the  word  of  Bildad  the  Shuhite.  "  How  shall 
men  be  justified  [or  stand  acquit]  with  God."  (Job  xxv,  4.) 
The  Jews  hoped  for  favor  with  God,  as  being  "  his  elect  people ;" 
but  they  all  the  same  claimed  to  merit  their  justification  from 
works  of  law.  In  the  same  way  the  ethnic  religions  all  prescribe 
the  doing  of  something  to  merit  favor  witli  God,  or,  at  least,  to 
avert  his  wrath.  They  enjoin  the  maceration  of  the  body ;  the 
offering  of  costly  sacrifices ;  of  precious  things ;  the  blood  of 
animals  ;  the  life  of  human  victims,  even  of  those  dearest  to  them  ; 
"  they  slay  their  first-born  for  their  transgression,  the  fruit  of 
their  body  for  the  sin  of  their  soul."  (Micah  vi,  7.)  In  this  mat- 
ter, then,  Jews  and  heathen  stand  substantially  on  the  same 
footing.  They  give  a  venal  God  something,  that  they  may  get 
something  back.  But  Paul  declares  the  Jewish  claim  (and  by 
parity,  the  heathen)  inadmissible:  "From  works  of  law  will  no 


S4  EXPOSITION. 

flesh  be  justified  before  him."  (Rom.  ill,  20.)  The  only  hope  of 
justification  for  all  uumi,  is  throujih  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 

II.  The  word  faith  is  another  of  the  momentous  terms  in  this 
verse ;  a  word  which  plays  a  leading  part  in  Paul's  writings, 
especially  in  his  contention  against  the  Jewish  claim  to  be  justi- 
fied from  works. 

The  careful  reader  of  tlie  Bible  finds  no  more  mai'ked  con- 
trast between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  than  in  their 
respective  vocabularies.  The  New  Testament,  expressive  of  gos- 
pel ideas  and  doctrines,  has  a  rich  store  of  new  words,  or  of 
words  with  enlarged  senses,  that  have  little  or  no  place  in  the 
Old  Testament.  One  of  these  is  the  word  "  faith."  In  the  En- 
glish translation  of  the  Old  Testament  this  term  is  found  but 
twice,"  in  Deut.  xxxii,  20,  and  in  the  famous  i)assage  in  Habak- 
kuk,  so  often  quoted,  with  a  variation,  in  the  New  Testament, 
"  But  the  just  shall  live  by  his  faith  "  (Hab.  ii,4).  Yet  if  the  woi-d 
is  not  often  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  thing  itself  was  not 
unknown  to  the  patriarchs.  The  writer  of  "Hebrews"  gives 
some  grand  instances  of  this  early  faith,  and  declares  of  those 
eldest  sons  of  men  that  they  "  all  died  in  (he  faith,  not  having  re- 
ceived the  proinises,  but  having  seen  them  from  afar,  and  saluted 
them."  (Heb.  xi,  13.)  But  in  the  New  Testament,  the  Greek  woi-d 
for  faith,  irlaTis,  occurs  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  times,  and  the 
Greek  verb  viaTtikiv,  "  to  have  faith,"  "to  faith  a  thing," t  usually 
translated  "to  believe,"  occurs  about  as  many  times  more.  One 
at  least  (usually  both)  of  these  words  occurs  in  every  book  in  the 
New  Testament,  except  the  two  short  letters  of  John.  It  is  worthy 
of  note  that  in  the  Gospel  of  John  the  noun  "faith"  does  not  occur 
at  all,  but  the  verb,  "to  believe,"  "to  have  faith,"  ninety-five 
times. 

The  word  faith  has  several  special  meanings  in  the  Scriptures, 
accoi-ding  as  it  expresses  the  exercises  of  the  intellectual  faculties, 
or  of  the  sensibilities,  or  of  the  higher  religious  faculty  of  the 
will. 


•The  Hebrew  word,  however,  occurs  about  fifty  times.  It  Is  usually 
transliitecl  by  words  donoUng /aitJi/ulne.i.i,  truth.  Fuerst's  Hebrew  Lexicon 
says  that  it  never  occurs  In  the  sense  of  faith,  which  It  did  not  take  until 
the  latest  period  of  the  language. 

+  Thls  verb  belongs  to  the  old  English  vocabulary.  Shakespeare  says: 
"Would  the  reposal  of  trust  In  thee  make  thy  words  /ailhedf'  King 
l.i'RT  II,  1,  7'.'.  It  Is  unfortunate  tliat  this  English  verb  has  not  made  good 
Its  place  In  literary,  and  especially  in  theological  usage. 


ROMANS  I,  17.  85 

1.  1.  Faith  may  denote,  objectively,  the  creed;  the  system  of 
doctrines  accepted  by  the  Church;  for  example:  "He  preaches 
thQ  faith  which  he  once  destroyed"  (Gal.  i,  23);  "The  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints"  (Jude  3);  'Your  most  holy 
faith"    (Jude  20). 

2.  Faith  may  denote,  subjectively,  credence;  an  intellectual, 
a  scientific  persuasion  of  any  fact,  or  historical  belief  of  any  thing 
taught;  e.  g.,  "Thou  believest  [hast  faith]  that  there  is  one  God. 
.  .  .  The  devils  also  believe.'^  (James  ii,  19.)  This  exercise  of 
faith  is  purely  intellectual ;  and  has  no  saving  value. 

II.  3.  The  word  may  denote  fidelity,  or  faithfulness  to  obliga- 
tion ;  for  example:  "Shall  their  unfaith  annul  the  faith  [faith- 
fulness] of  God?"  (Rom.  iii,  3)  ;  "By  their  unfaith  [unfaithful- 
ness] they  were  broken  out;  but  thou  by  thy  faith  [fidelity] 
standest  "  (Rom.  xi,  20). 

4.  Faith  may  denote  confidence,  trust  in  another;  for  ex- 
ample, "That  I  may  be  comforted  while  with  you,  through  your 
faith  [personal  confidence]  and  mine,  in  each  other."  (Rom. 
i,12.) 

These  exercises  of  faith,  in  Nos.  3  and  4,  are  subjective  and 
ethical ;  but  they  are  not  of  such  religious  character  as  God 
reckons  for  justification.  Even  bad  men  have  these  forms  of 
faith. 

III.  5.  Faith  may  denote,  finally,  the  Christian  grace  of  trust, 
or  reliance  on  Christ  as  the  Redeemer  and  Savior.  Faith  is  the 
soul's  incumbency,  or  staying  of  itself  on  the  provisions  of  the 
gospel.  This  is  the  spiritual,  religious,  saving  exercise  of  faith : 
"With  the  heart,  faith  is  exercised  unto  justification."  (Rom. 
X,  10.)  It  is  the  highest  and  gi-andest  exercise  of  the  spiritual 
faculty,  the  will,  and  is  the  appointed  condition  and  channel  for 
the  pardoning  grace  of  God.  "By  grace  [that  is,  gratis]  ye  have 
been  saved,  through  faith  ;  and  that  is  not  of  yourselves  ;  it  is  the 
gift  of  God."     (Eph.  ii,  8.) 

The  verb  is  revealed  suggests  that  the  gospel  is  not  new  in 
itself;  only  what  has  previously  existed  can  be  "  revealed."  God's 
plan  of  justification  from  faith  was  established  of  old ;  the  reve- 
lation of  it  (in  its  fullness)  is  now  rtew.  "In  former  generations 
it  was  not  made  known  [fully]  to  the  sons  of  men,  as  it  was  now 
revealed  to  his  holy  apostles  and  prophets."  (Eph.  iii,  5.)  Yet 
this  plan  is  the  only  plan  on  which  God  has  ever  worked.  It  is 
said  of  Abraham  that  "he  had  faith  in  God,  and  his  faith  was 


86  EXPOSITION. 

rt'ckoncd  to  him  unto  justification."  (Rom.  iv,  3.)  No  man  ever 
found  acceptance  with  God  in  any  other  waj'.  Even  in  the  case  of 
tliose  wlio,  in  earliest  days,  or  in  heathen  lands,  thought  to  work 
out,  to  earn,  their  salvation  by  good  works,  God,  in  his  willingness 
and  ability  to  save,  ccjunted  the  inotire  as  an  implicit  faith;  and 
thougli  he  did  not  accept  the  works,  he  accepted  the  latent  faith 
for  justification.  But  now  the  gospel  reveals,  makes  known,  to 
men  the  {)rinial,  and  normal,  and  only  plan  of  salvation, — justifi- 
cation from  faith. 

That  in  this  vei*se  the  words  justification  from  faith  are  to 
be  construed  together  is  shown  by  the  invariable  sequence  of  these 
words  elsewhere.  Paul  declares:  "  We  reckon  that  man  Isjustitiid 
by  faith  [wiffTti] ,  ai)art  from  works  of  law."  (Kom.  iii,  28.)  This  is  the 
keynote  to  Paul's  argument,  and  to  the  theology  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  It  is  the  articulus  atantis  vel  cadentis  ecelesise.  We 
read:  "God  will  justify  the  circumscision /roni  faith  [^k  irfa-rewj] 
(Rom.  iii,  30)  ;  "  Having  been  justified  from  [iK]  faith,  we  have 
peace"  (Rom.  v,  1)  ;  "The  Gentiles  attained  justification  frovi  [iK] 
faith"  (Rom.  ix,  30)  ;  "The  justification  from  [^k]  faith  .  .  .  says, 
the  word  is  near  thee,  in  thy  heart  "  (Rom.  x,  6-8)  ;  "  Knowing  that 
man  is  justified  through  [5id]  faith  .  .  .  we  had  faith  that  we  may 
be  justified  from  [iK]  faith"  (Gal.  ii,  16);  "We  await  the  hope 
of  justification  from  [iK]  faith"  (Gal.  v,  5).  The  cumulative  evi- 
dence from  Paul's  own  writings  is  overwhelming  that  this  is  the 
only  admissible  construction  of  the  first  words  of  this  verse :  "God's 
plan  of  justification  from  faith  is  revealed  in  the  gospel."  And  it 
is  the  only  construction,  and  is  the  only  sense  which  the  apostle 
attaches  to  the  quotation  in  this  verse  from  Habakkuk:  "The  just 
from  faith  will  live."     (Hab.  ii,  4.) 

The  connection  and  meaning  of  the  words  next  following: 
unto  faith  (els  irlanv),  or  better,  "  with  a  view  to  faith"  is  vari- 
ously given.  1.  The  connection  which  joins  the  words  "  from  faith 
unto  faith"  in  continuous  sense,  makes  them  express  a  grada- 
tional  progress,  or  climax  in  religious  experience,  "from  one  degree 
of  faith  to  another."  This  interpretation,  tliough  not  destitute  of 
meaning,  and  apparently  jwstifii'd  by  similar  (but  not  the  same) 
construction  with  other  words  elsewhere  [as,  for  example,  "They 
go  from  strength  to  strength"  (Ps.  Ixxxiv,  7),  and  "They  are 
changed  from  glory  to  glory"  (2  Cor.  iii,  18)]  is  yet,  not  in  the 
line  of  the  apostle's  argument,  which  does  not  aim  to  distinguish 
between  dififerent  degrees  of  faith,  the  incipient  and  the  perfected, 


ROMANS  I,  17.  87 

but  distinguishes  between  things  that  are  generically  dififerent, — 
on  the  one  hand,  a  faith,  which  is  already  absolute  and  complete ; 
and  which  is  presupposed  as  the  one  saving  condition  of  the  gospel, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  works  of  law,  the  non-saving  reliance  and 
boast  of  the  Jews.  2.  Another  combination  connects  the  words 
"  unto  faith  "  with  the  verb  "  revealed."  If  we  look  at  the  English 
words  only,  this  connection  seems  grammatically  possible  ;  but  the 
interpretation  which  makes  the  words  "  unto  faith"  mean  "  to  the 
expectant  and  receptive  faith  of  the  believer,"  though  good  in 
itself,  and  evangelical  (and  apparently  in  accord  with  the  language 
of  Rom.  iii,  22,  "  God's  justification  has  been  manifested,  .  .  . 
through  faith  .  .  .  unto  all  that  have  faith"),  is  also  not  in 
the  line  of  the  apostle's  argument ;  and  the  sense  is  probably  not 
in  accordance  with  the  Greek.  This  interpretation  would  be  pos- 
sible, not  as  here  with  the  preposition  els,  "  into"  or  "  unto,"  but 
only  with  the  dative  case,  ry  wiffTei,  "  to  faith,"  as  an  indirect  limit 
to  the  verb,  (as  in  1  Cor.  ii,  10,  "  But  to  us  God  revealed  it ;"  and, 
Eph.  iii,  5,  "  It  was  revealed  to  the  saints.")®  But  with  the  prep- 
osition els,  the  clause  "unto  faith"  must  be  counted  a  general 
adverbial  modifier  of  the  verb,  and  with  a  telic  significance.  The 
proper  construction  of  words  with  the  preposition  els,  is  found  in 
Rom.  vi,  16,  19.  "As  ye  yielded  your  members  to  iniquity,  imth  a 
view  to  iniquity,  so  now  yield  them  to  justification,  uith  a  view 
to  sanctification."  Accordingly,  3,  we  interpret  the  passage  as 
meaning  "  God's  plan  of  justification  from  faith  was  revealed  in 
the  gospel  with  a  view  to  faith ;"  that  is,  to  excite  faith  in  the 
hearer,  and  thus  to  do  away  with  reliance  on  works. 

The  concluding  words  in  the  verse,  The  just  from  faith  will 
live,  are  a  quotation  from  Habakkuk.  They  were  uttered  in  the 
last  days  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  about  B.  C.  605.  Habak- 
kuk, prophet  and  patriot  as  well,  foresees  the  invasion  of  his 
country  by  Nebuchadnezzar ;  and  foretells  calamity  to  the  pre- 
sumptuous Jew,  but  safety  to  the  righteous  Jew.  Henderson 
well  translates,  for  Habakkuk's  sense: 

"  Behold  the  proud  !  his  soul  is  not  right  within  him  ; 

But  the  righteous  shall  live  [i.  e.,  will  save  his  life],  by  his 
faith."     (Hab.  ii,  4.) 

In  this  verse,  the  word  faith  obviously  means  fidelity,  or  obe- 
dience to  God.     The  last  clause  is  famous  in  New  Testament  con- 


i]ljuv  di  aireKoXv^tv  6  6f6s.      dveKaXiKpOr]  rots  d7i'ots. 


88  EXPOSITION. 

nections.  It  is  quoted  oiict>  and  a^ain  by  Paul  (Rom.  i,  17;  Gal. 
iii,  11),  and  once  by  the  author  of  Hebrews  (x,  38).  And  Luther, 
in  the  crisis  of  his  ri-ligious  struf^gle,  in  the  midst  of  some  humili- 
ating penance  at  Rome,  suddenly  recalled  these  words,  "The  just 
shall  live  hij  faith;"  and  instantly  and  forever  recoiled  from  his 
superstition.  It  was  a  memorable  incident  for  him  ;  but  though  he 
gave  the  woi'ds  the  usual  evangelical  sense,  he  did  not  give  them 
the  sense  of  the  apostle.  What  is  the  meaning  in  the  prophet's 
Hebrew  text?  and  what  is  the  meaning  in  these  New  Testament 
quotations  ? 

The  offln-  of  the  words  in  the  Hebrew,  and  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  in  the  Greek  Testament,  is  that  given  above:  "  The  just  from 
faith  will  live."  And  in  both  languages  the  words  may  be  dis- 
tributed grammatically  and  logically  in  either  of  two  ways,  ac- 
cording as  the  prepositional  phrase  "from  faith"  is  connected  in 
thought  as  an  adverb  with  the  verb  "  will  live,"  or  as  an  adjective, 
with  the  noun  "just."  We  shall  then  have  two  alternatives: 
1.  "  The  just— from  faith  will  live  ;"  or,  2.  "  The  just  from  faith- 
will  live."  The  difference  is  fundamental,  involving  the  explana- 
tion of  th('  words  severally,  and  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Habak- 
kukian  saying,  and  of  the  Pauline  quotation. 

Undoubtedly,  in  the  Masoretic  text  of  the  Bible,  the  disjunc- 
tive accent  (Tiphka),  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  "  the  just,"  gives 
the  former  construction  for  the  saying  as  it  is  in  the  English 
Bible,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New:  "  The  just — will 
live  by  faith."  •  This  grammatical  notation  of  the  synagogue, 
dates,  however,  only  from  about  A.  D.  600,  and  so  has  in  itself  no 
final  authority ;  but  aside  from  this  late  notation  of  the  Hebrew 
scholars,  clearly  their  interpretation  was  right ;  and  this  was  the 
only  possible  connection  in  Habakkuk's  own  mind.  It  is  plain 
that  the  prophet  meant  to  say  that  the  righteous  man  should  not  be 
slain  by  the  Chaldeans,  but  should  save  his  life  by  his  faithfulness 
to  God.  .\ccoi*dingly,  we  can  not  hold  that  the  passage  in  Habak- 
kuk  was  designed  to  express  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification 
from  faith ;  for  the  connection  in  which  it  stands  in  the  Hebrew 
does  not  admit  of  this  specific  meaning.  The  intei'pretation  of  the 
synagogue  is  the  correct  one  for  the  Hebrew  text. 

But  it  is  equally  plain  that  the  words  of  Habakkuk,  if  read 
independently  of  the  original  connection,  and  of  the  present 
Hebrew  accentuation,  are  capable  verbally,  grammatically,  of  the 
other  construction,  "  The  just  by  faith — will  live,"  and  therefore 


ROMANS  I,  17.  89 

of  another  interpretation.  The  words,  too,  severally,  will  now 
take  on  modified  meanings  to  fit  them  for  the  new  thought.  This 
different  construction  for  the  words,  and  diffei-ent  interpretation 
for  the  sense,  is  the  one  which  Paul  gives  to  the  saying,  to  express 
the  Christian  dogma  of  justification  from  faith,  and  the  consequent 
eternal  life  of  the  believer.  This  new  dogmatic  use  of  the  saying 
was  all  the  easier  to  Paul,  from  the  well-known  consecution  of  the 
words  in  both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint ;  the  latter  of  which 
Paul  doubtless  here  had  in  mind.  At  all  events,  whether  he  had 
the  Hebrew  (without  accents),  or  the  Septuagint,  before  him,  the 
now  Christian  rabbi  read  into  the  familiar  saying  a  higher  mean- 
ing than  it  had  borne  to  him  in  the  school  of  Gamaliel,  or  in  the 
synagogue  service.  Yet,  while  Paul  reverses  the  logical  connec- 
tion of  the  words  as  they  stand  in  the  Hebrew,  and  reads  into  the 
saying  this  new  sense,  all  that  was  of  ethical  value  in  it  of  old, 
remains ;  and  it  is  now  simply  lifted  from  the  plane  of  practical 
Old  Testament  piety  and  obedience,  to  the  expression  of  the  dis- 
tinctive Christian  concept  and  dogma,  that  man  is  justified  not  by 
works,  but  from  faith ;  and  that  the  man  so  justified  from  faith, 
will  not  die  forever,  but  will  have  eternal  life:  "  He  that  is  just 
from  faith  will  have  life." 

In  Habakkuk  the  words  just,  faith,  live,  are  terms  substantially 
of  e</iicaZ  significance ;  in  Paul  they  are  tei'ms  substantially  of 
forensic  note.  We  have  already  discussed  the  word  faith :  it  re- 
mains that  we  discuss  the  other  two  words. 

1.  Just:  In  Habakkuk  the  word  "just"  means  pious:  it 
describes  the  man  who  has  habitually  lived  an  upright  (though  we 
can  not  say  a  perfect)  life,  and  is  what  we  conventionally  call  a 
righteous  man,  innocent  of  ovei-t  offense.  This  sense  of  the  word 
is  found  in  the  saying:  "Against  a,  just  man  [a  godly,  upright  man] 
Law  does  not  lie."  (1  Tim.  i,  9.)  It  is  found  in  a  higher  sense  in 
regard  to  Jesus:  "  Ye  refused  the  Holy  and  Just  One."  (Acts  iii, 
14.)  This  popular  meaning  is  the  evident  sense  of  the  word  in 
Habakkuk;  but  Paul,  in  his  citation  of  the  Habakkukian  saying, 
uses  the  word  "just,"  not  in  the  conventional  sense  of  good  or 
pious  (which  may  have  various  shades  of  meaning),  but  in  the  legal, 
or  forensic,  sense  of  acquit,  free  from  guilt  (which  has  but  one  abso- 
lute meaning).  The  word  describes,  not  what  a  man  habitually  is, 
ethically,  or  as  a  religious  man,  but  what  he  forensically  becomes 
in  the  sight  of  the  law,  as  the  result  of  faith.  The  logic  of  the 
connection  decides  absolutely  for  this  sense   of  the   quotation. 


90  EXPOSITION. 

That  the  arrangement  of  the  woi-ds  in  the  English  translations, 
both  Authorized  and  Revised,  and  the  sense  conveyed  by  them 
can  not  be  correct,  to  express  Paul's  concept,  is  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing consideration : 

The  woi-d  "just,"  if  taken  apart  from  the  prepositional  phrase 
"from  faith,"  as  is  assumed  by  the  reading,  "The  just — will  live 
from  faith,"  assumes  that  the  person  described  is  already  just 
to  begin  with,  that  is,  that  he  must  be  counted  absolutely  free 
from  offnse  and  guilt;  but  of  this  just  person  the  apostle  de- 
clares that  he  "  will  live  from  faith."  But  what  does  this  declara- 
tion, "  will  live  from  faith,"  mean,  when  spoken  of  such  a  subject? 
It  must  mean  one  of  two  things;  either,  first,  that  the  "just" 
man  "will  lead  his  [daily]  life  from  faith;"  or,  secondly,  that  he 
"will  attain  to  [eternal]  life  from  faith."  But  neither  of  these 
senses  is  in  accord  with  Paul's  thought  in  this  sentence,  nor  in 
accoi*d  with  the  New  Testament  concept  of  the  place  of  faith  in 
the  gospel  plan.  A  man  who  is  sinful  may  become  "  justified  from 
faith"  in  Christ;  and  a  converted  sinner  may  "lead  his  life  from 
faith"  in  Christ  (Gal.  ii,  20),  and  not  from  works.  But  a  man 
who  as  this  construction  of  the  sentence  assumes,  is  "just,"  to 
start  with — that  is,  has  never  been  guilty  of  offense  (as,  for  ex- 
ample, Adam  before  he  fell,  the  divine  Son  of  God,  the  angels  in 
heaven) — gets  nothing  "from  faith."  He  neither  (on  the  first 
hypothesis)  "leads  his  daily  life  from  faith  "  in  Christ,  but  from 
works ;  nor  (on  the  second  hypothesis)  attains  to  eternal  life  from 
faith  in  Christ,  but  from  works.  To  a  "just  man,"  a  man  who  is 
just,  in  this  absolute  sense  of  the  word,  both  these  consequences 
result,  not  "from faith"  in  Christ,  as  the  Redeemer  from  sin,  but 
from  his  own  obedience  to  law ;  and  his  title  to  life  is  "  from  works 
of  law:"  as  it  is  said,  "Moses  describes  the  justification  that  is 
from  law,  that  the  man  who  has  done  its  works  will  live  [have 
eternal  life]  in  it."     (Rom.  x,  5.) 

It  follows  that  the  only  possible  construction  of  the  oft-quoted 
sentence,  in  Paul's  evangelical  sense  of  the  saying,  is:  "  The  just 
from  faith — will  live ;"  that  is,  any  sinner  (and  Paul's  discourse  is 
not  of  just  men  but  of  sinners)  who  has  been  justified  (or  acquit  of 
his  guilt)  from  faith  will  have  eternal  life.  Paul  is  not  alleging,  as 
Habakkuk,  that  "  the  pious  Jew  will  live  [be  delivered  alive  from 
the  Chaldeans]  by  his  fidelity  to  God;"  nor  is  he  alleging  (as  he 
is  usually  understood),  that  "  the  pious  man  will  live  his  daily  life 
by  the  rule  of  faith,"  whatever  that  may  mean ;  but  is  alleging. 


ROMANS  I,  18.  91 

in  the  gospel  sense  which  he  attaches  to  the  saying,  that  the  man, 
the  sinful  man,  who  has  been  justified  from  his  sin  and  guilt,  by 
his  faith  in  Christ  (and  is  therefore  no  longer  amenable  to  the 
penalty  of  eternal  death)  will  have  eternal  life.  Christ  himself 
declares  this  principle,  and  interprets  the  words,  "will  have 
life,"  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  to  you  that  he  that  has  faith  on 
me  has  eternal  life."     (John  vi,  47.) 

2.  The  word  will  live. 

This  verb,  'Wo  live,"  is  susceptible  of  different  senses,  which 
must  be  ascertained  from  the  connections.     It  may  mean — 

1.  To  be  alive;  or  to  come  to  life,  physically,  as  opposed  to 
veKp6$,  dead.  (1)  Literally  :  "This  thy  brother  was  dead,  and  lived 
again"  (Luke  xv,  32)  ;  "Christ  died  and  lived  again,  that  he  may 
be  Lord  of  dead  men  and  living"  (Rom.  xiv,  9).  (2)  Metaphor- 
ically: To  be  ethically  alive.  "I  tvas  alive  once— and  I  died" 
(Rom.  vii,  9)  ;  "Thou  hast  a  name  that  thou  livest,  and  art  dead" 
(Rev.  iii,  1). 

2.  To  go  on  one's  way  ;  to  continue  one's  course  ;  to  lead  one's 
daily  life.     "  If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  will  die."     (Rom.  viii,  13.) 

3.  To  pass  the  time,  to  be  employed,  to  demean  one's  self: 
(1)  Intransitively.  "According  to  the  strictest  sect  of  our  re- 
ligion, I  Zii'^'d  a  Pharisee"  (Acts  xxvi,  5).  {2)  Transitively.  "The 
life  that  I  now  live,  I  lire  by  faith"   (Gal.  ii,  20). 

4.  To  find  a  livelihood:  "The  Lord  ordained  that  they  who 
preach  the  gospel  should  live  from  the  gospel."     (1  Cor.  ix,  14.) 

5.  To  have  eternal  life;  to  be  endowed  with  existence:  "The 
dead  will  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  they  that  have 
heard  ivill  live"  (John  v,  25)  :  "  If  any  one  eat  from  this  bread, 
he  will  live  forever"  (John  vi,  51)  ;  "  If  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds 
of  the  body,  ye  will  live  "  (Rom.  viii,  13). 

Now,  in  the  text  before  us,  the  fifth  of  those  meanings  is  clearly 
the  appropriate  one:  "He  that  is  justified  from  faith  will  have 
eternal  life  ;"  and  he  is  the  only  one  that  will  have  life,  "  for  from 
works  of  law  will  no  man  be  justified." 

Verse  18.  For  God's  wrath  is  revealed  from  heaven 
against  all  impiety  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  who 
hinder  the  truth  in  vmrighteousness. 

The  conjunction  for  connects  the  thought  back  to  the  word 
"  justification,"  in  the  preceding  verse.  This  term,  which  means 
"acquittal  from  guilt,"  implies  the  fact  of  sin,  and  points  to  the 


92  EXPOSITION. 

condition  of  man  under  win,  and  to  God's  attitude  towai*ds  it. 
God's  justification  from  faith  is  revealed  to  the  world,  with  a  view 
to  stimulate  faith;  but  tiiere  is  also  revealed  (made  known  to  the 
world)  God's  wrath  against  all  unright<'ousncs9  of  men,  with  a 
view  to  restrain  men  from  it.  The  word  for  wrath,  sometimes 
also  translated  "  anger,"  is  but  the  judicial  indignation  and 
resentment  of  a  Holy  Being  towards  sin.  Anger,  which  properly 
is  not  a  malignant  passion,  is  just  as  normal  to  the  character  of 
God  as  to  man,  who  was  made  in  his  moral  likeness.  A  being 
rightly  constituted  can  not  avoid  this  feeling  when  the  occasion 
arises,  and  ought  not  to  avoid  it.  Not  the  emotion  of  anger,  but 
tlie  improper  indulgence  of  it  is  wrong.  Paul  commands,  "  Be 
angry;"  but  adds  this  admonition,  "and  sin  not."  (Eph.  iv,  26.) 
Vengeance  (vindictiveness),  is  never  right  for  man:  but  "Ven- 
geance [vindication],  is  mine,  says  the  Lord."    (Rom.  xii,  19.) 

The  first  clause  of  the  verse  perhaps  means  not  only  that  the 
fact  of  God's  anger  was  declared  from  heaven,  whether  thi'ough 
the  voice  of  inspiration,  or  in  the  conscience  of  men  (though  both 
of  these  things  are  also  true)  ;  but  also  that  his  jirimitive  wrath 
is  practically  exhibited  in  the  world,  in  the  unhappy  experience  of 
sinnei'S. 

The  words  impiety  and  unrighteousness  (injustice),  name 
the  two  forms  of  sin,  which  an^  the  objects  of  God's  anger, — 
directed,  the  one  against  God,  the  other  against  man.  The  word 
all  in  this  clause,  as  always  in  Paul's  writings,  must  be  taken  in 
its  largest  latitude.  The  word  here  contemplates  not  the  Gentile 
world  only,  though  first  in  this  catalogue  of  wicked  men  ;  but  also 
the  Jewish  world.  The  remainder  of  this  chapter  describes  the 
sins  of  the  Gentiles  especially.  The  second  chapter  describes  the 
sins  of  the  Jews. 

The  Greek  verb,  here  translated  hinder,  has  the  double  and 
opposite  senses  of  maintaining  and  of  impeding.  In  Luke  the 
woi"d  has  the  former  sense:  "  Having  heard  the  word,  they  hold  it 
fast  in  a  good  and  honest  heart."  (Luke  viii,  15.)  In  our  present 
passage,  it  has  the  other  meaning:  "Men  hold  hack  [hinder]  the 
truth;"  they  keep  it  from  running,  and  being  glorified  in  its  mis- 
sion. The  word  truth  in  this  description  of  the  Gentile  world  can 
not  mean  the  definite  truth  of  revelation  ;  but  rather  so  much  of 
the  general  knowledge  of  God  as  is  found  among  men,  from  the 
primitive  tradition  and  from  the  light  of  natural  religion,  as  is 
shown  by  the  next  verses. 


RO}rANS  T.    19,  20.  93 

Verse  19.  Because  so  much  of  God  as  is  known  is 
manifest  in  them ;  for  God  manifested  it  to  them. 

The  conjunction  because  relates  back  to  the  assumed  mass 
of  truth,  which  the  heathen  know  of,  but  "  hinder."  They  hinder 
the  truth,  the  trutli  which  enlightens  every  man  that  comes  into 
the  world.  This  truth  is  the  primitive  and  true,  though  imper- 
fect, knowledge  of  God  which  came  down  from  the  earliest  reve- 
lation, the  common  heritage  of  man.  It  was  not  the  full-orbed 
knowledge  of  God  which  was  given  in  later  generations.  It  was 
only  so  much  of  God  as  is  kno'wn  to  all  men,  his  being,  and 
his  natural  attributes ;  for  this  much  God  manifested  to  them. 
This  aorist  tense  carries  the  act  back  to  the  original  constitution 
of  men  as  moral  beings  and  their  first  knowledge  of  God.  The 
image  of  God  in  man,  and  his  moral  intuition  of  God,  though 
blurred,  has  not  been  lost.  All  men  have  clear  perceptions  of 
moral  distinctions.  God  has  never  left  himself  without  this 
attestation  of  himself.  This  never  absent  recognition  of  God  is 
reaffirmed,  more  definitely,  in  the  next  verse  :  "Ever  since  the 
creation  of  the  world,  his  attributes  are  seen." 

Verse  20.  For  his  unseen  attributes,  both  his  eternal 
power  and  divinity,  since  the  creation  of  the  w^orld  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  his  works ;  so  that  they 
are  w^ithout  excuse. 

These  are  the  attributes  which  are  revealed  by  the  light  of  na- 
ture, the  natural  attributes  which  belong  to  God  as  an  Infinite 
Spirit,  rather  than  the  ethical  attributes  of  holiness,  goodness,  and 
justice,  which  belong  to  him  as  a  moral  Ruler,  and  which  are  not 
revealed  by  natural  theology.  This  is  the  utmost  lesson  of  nat- 
ural theology.  It  is  not  through  God's  works,' but  by  his  revealed 
Word,  that  we  learn  the  greater  lessons  of  religion  and  of  eternal 
life. 

In  this  verse  we  have  an  excellent  instance  of  the  plays  on 
words,  in  which  Paul  so  often  indulges:  God's  unseen  things  are 
seen.  God's  attributes,  though  unseen,  are  nevertheless  clearly 
seen  by  the  spiritual  ey<^  being  understood  by  his  w^orks. 
In  these  words  Paul  affirms  the  value,  sometimes  disparaged,  of 
natural  theology.  For  long  centuries,  and  for  the  gi-eater  part  of 
mankind,  the  teaching  from  his  works  was  the  only  revelation  of 
God  ;  just  as  true,  so  far  as  it  went,  as  the  voice  of  prophet  or 
apostle.     Both  revelations,  the  Book  of  Nature,  and  the  Book  of 


94  EXPOSITION. 

Revelation,  are  from  one  God,  the  Father  of  lights,  the  Father  of 
man.  Tlic  Old  Testament  also  bears  the  same  testimony  as  Paul 
to  the  value  of  natural  religion: 

"The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God.     .     .     . 

Day  unto  day  pours  forth  speech.     .     .     . 

But  there  is  no  speech,  no  words  : 

Nowhere  is  their  voice  heard: 

Yet  to  all  tlie  eartli  has  gone  out  their  strain." — Psa.  xix. 
So  far  the  heathen  world  could  walk  liand  in  hand  with  the  j)salm- 
ist,  and  with  the  Christian  apostle.  Tliey  all  alike  could  be  sure 
that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he  rules  in  the  affairs  of  men.  To 
know  thus  much  implied  that  there  was  yet  more  to  know ;  the 
Infinite  One  would  not  forever  hide  himself.  The  wisest  of  the 
heathen  yearned  for  this  fuller  revelation ;  and  felt  that  it  would 
come.  But  even  apart  from  the  revealed  Word,  men  had  sufficient 
light  to  be  without  excuse  for  bad  lives.  The  first  practical  effect 
of  God's  law,  natural  or  revealed,  is  to  bring  sin  into  clear  light, 
and  to  condemn  it. 

Verse  21.  Because,  having  come  to  know  God,  they 
did  not  glorify  him  as  God,  or  thank  him ;  nay,  but  they 
became  vain  in  their  reasonings,  and  their  foolish  heart 
was  darkened. 

They  came  to  know  God — that  is,  to  recognize  his  being  and 
attributes— but  they  did  not  give  him  the  glory  which  was  his  due 
as  the  Creator  and  the  Giver  of  "  life  and  breath,  and  all  things ;" 
and  they  did  not  thank  him  for  these  gifts  of  his  providence.  "  Here 
was  the  condemnation,  that  light  [on  these  fundamental  points] 
having  come  into  the  world,  men  [though  they  saw  the  light]  nev- 
ertheless loved  darkness  rather  than  light;  for  their  works  ivere 
evil."     (John  iii,  19.) 

The  strong  adversative  conjunction,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  half  of  the  verse,  whose  force  may  be  expressed  by  the 
words  nay,  but,  or  "but,  on  the  other  hand,"  point  to  the  true 
explanation  of  the  verb  became  vain.  In  the  Old  Testament, 
the  words  "vain,  vanity,"  often  denote  idolatry,  the  worship  of 
gods  that  are  not  gods,  but  mere  nothingness.  "Israel  followed 
vanity  [false  gods],  and  became  vain  [idolatrous]."  (2Kingsxvii, 
15.)  This  is  the  meaning  liere.  The  lieathen  fall  into  the  folly, 
fatuousness,  of  idolatry.  The  word  5ia\oyi<Tn6i,  here  translated 
reasonings  is  mostly  used  in  a  disparaging  sense,  almost  equiva- 


ROMANS  I.    S2,  SS.  96 

lent  to  "conceits,"  or  "quibbles."  The  debasement  of  the  hea- 
tlien  in  the  religious  scale  was  due,  not  to  the  will  of  God,  or  to 
their  unfavorable  circumstances,  with  only  the  light  of  nature; 
but  it  was  due  to  tlieir  paltering  with  their  own  convictions  and 
consciences. 

The  apostle's  thought  is  that  man  has  deteriorated  from  a 
primitive  monotheism,  to  polytheism,  to  idolatry,  to  fetichism,  to 
bestiality.  The  golden  age  is  behind  the  race  ;  and  man  is  not  de- 
veloping into  a  higher  and  purer  life.  Ethically  there  has  been  no 
"  ascent  of  man,"  but  only  "  descent  and  fall."  Whatever  the  de- 
velopments in  the  animal  world  in  the  eons  past,  at  least  man  did 
not  begin  in  the  zoological  garden,  but  in  the  Garden  of  Eden. 
The  darkening  of  men's  mind,  and  the  hardening  of  their  heart,  was 
self-incurred,  and  was  the  normal  result  of  their  own  folly.  God 
gave  them  over  to  their  own  wickedness.     Their  lamps  went  out. 

Verses  22,  23.  Declaring  themselves  to  be  wise  men 
they  became  fools,  and  exchanged  the  glory  of  the  incor- 
ruptible God  for  the  sameness  of  image  with  corruptible 
man,  and  birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping 
things. 

The  first  "words  are  sometimes  referred  to  the  philosophers  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  in  the  era  of  their  greatest  refinement.  But 
the  passage,  as  a  whole,  describes  rather  the  original  lapse  of  the 
heathen  into  idolatry.  The  apostle  says  that  men  {all  men,  not 
merely  the  leaders  and  thinkers,  for  these  less  than  the  others), 
while  professing  to  be  reasonable  beings,  nevertheless  fell  into  the 
absurdity  of  idolatry,  the  grossest  forms  of  idolatry.  The  prophets 
long  before  Paul's  time  satirized  this  absurd  idolatry.  "With 
part  of  the  wood  he  roasts  his  meat,  with  part  he  warms  himself, 
and  the  residue  he  makes  into  a  god,  and  worships  it!"  (Isa.  xliv, 
15.)  "Their  idols  are  the  work  of  men's  hands,  they  speak  not, 
they  see  not ;  and  they  that  make  them  are  like  them ;"  that  is, 
wooden,  stupid.     (Ps.  cxv,  4.) 

The  verb  in  the  twenty-third  verse,  and  the  preposition  follow- 
ing it,  ^Aa^av  \v,  are  translated  in  the  Authorized  "  changed  into" 
— that  is,  "  transformed  into" — which  is  impossible  for  this  Greek. 
The  proper  meaning  is  that  of  substitution,  or  putting  off,  of  one 
thing/or  another.  The  translation  here  is  "exchanged for."  The 
apostle's  contemptuous  feeling  would  be  expressed  exactly  by  our 
colloquial  word  ^^  swapped  for" — a  word  level  with  the  action  of 


96  EXPOSITION. 

"  fools."  The  verse  shows  how  the  heathen  sank  by  regular  grada- 
tions from  the  spiritual  worship  of  the  Invisible  (iod  to  the  wor- 
^hip  of  images.  "Four'-like,  they  "swapi)od"  that  great  glory 
for  the  image  of  corruptible  man,  as  among  the  Greeks;  then  of 
brute  animals,  as  among  the  Egyptians  ;  then  of  serpents,  as  among 
the  lowest  savages.  Could  fatuity  and  groveling  sui)erstition  go 
further?  or  sell  out  worse?  The  word  d/Mlutui,  usually  translated 
"  likeness,"  means  "sameness,"  and  in  this  place  has  "man"  for 
its  limit, — "  sameness  with  man."  The  woi*d  is  found  also  in 
Rom.  V,  14;  vi,  5;  viii,  3,  and  in  Phil,  ii,  7,  in  all  of  which  places 
it  means  "sameness." 

Verses  24,  25.  Wherefore  God  gave  them  up  in  the 
Iviflts  of  their  hearts  unto  uncleanness,  so  that  their  bodies 
were  dishonored  among  them ;  who  exchanged  the  truth 
of  God  for  the  lie  ;  and  they  reverenced  and  served  the 
creature,  beyond  Him  who  created  it,  who  is  blessed  for- 
ever.   Amen. 

God  withdrew  the  restraints  of  the  Spirit  from  the  heathen, 
because  of  their  willfulness,  and  left  tliem  to  their  lusts ;  just  as 
he  dealt  with  the  chosen  people.  "  Isi-ael  would  none  of  me  ;  so  I 
gave  them  up  unto  their  own  heart's  lust."  (Ps.  Ixxxi,  11.)  In 
morals,  as  well  as  in  nature,  "  like  begets  like."  Vice  indulged 
leads  with  rapid  steps  to  vice  of  yet  more  debasing  kind.  "Facilis 
descensus  Averni."  But  perhaps  we  have  something  more  here 
than  the  mere  abandonment  of  the  heathen  to  their  own  ways. 
God's  government  is  so  planned  that  apostasy  leads  to  infamy. 
God  not  only  passively  permits  this  result,  but  punitively  gives 
over  the  apostate  to  corruptness  of  life.  God  bends  himself  to 
man's  bent.  Yet  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  or  responsible  for 
man's  impurity ;  and  man  even  in  the  depths  of  sin  and  lust 
remains  consciously  master  of  his  own  action,  conscious  of  his 
wickedness,  conscious  that  he  ought  to  repent,  and  conscious  that 
he  can  repent. 

The  last  clause  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse,  so  that  their  bodies 
w^ere  dishonored, — is  translated  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Re- 
vised, to  express  God's  punitive  purpose,  "  that  their  bodies  may  be 
dishonored."  This  translation  is  grammatically  possible;  but  the 
former  accords  better  with  the  historical  drift  of  the  passage,  and 
the  apostle's  thought  lies  in  this  direction.  The  body  is  sacred; 
it  is  the  temple  of  man's  personality  ;  and,  in  Paul's  conception,  it 


ROMANS  I.    ^6,  21.  97 

is  ''the  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  (1  Cor.  vi,  19.)  Sensuality, 
especially  sexual  uncleanness,  dishonors  the  body.  "  It  takes  away 
Christ's  members,  and  makes  them  members  of  a  harlot."  (1  Cor. 
vi,  15.)  Promiscuous  social  impurity  always  accompanied  idolatry. 
The  temples  of  the  gods,  esjiecially  the  Asiatic  gods,  and  some 
fanes  of  their  worship  in  Greece,  were  but  public  brothels.  The 
temple  of  Venus  at  Corinth,  from  beneath  whose  shadow  Paul 
wrote  this  Epistle,  was  endowed  with  more  than  a  thousand  pub- 
lic courtesans. 

The  twenty-fifth  verse  says,  They  exchanged  the  truth  of 
God  for  the  lie.  Both  substantives  are  abstract ;  and  the  latter, 
"</je  lie,"  takes  the  article  after  the  model  of  the  former.  "The 
truth  of  God,"  is  the  reality,  the  verity,  of  the  divine  nature  ;  "  the 
lie"  is  the /aZse  show  of  reality,  the  idol,  that  has  no  substantive 
existence.  "An  idol  is  nothing"  (or,  perhaps  better,"  there  is  no 
idol.")  (1  Cor.  viii,  4.)  "They  gave  up  [swapped  off]  the  eternal 
substance  for — a  nothing P'  They  reverenced  and  served  the 
creatiire  beyond  Him  -who  created  it.  This  was  the  lowest 
possible  abysm  of  folly:  they  fell  into  fetichism;  and  found  in 
sticks,  and  stones,  and  snakes,  gods  to  which  they  bowed  down. 

Verses  26,  27.  On  account  of  this,  God  gave  them  up 
\into  infamous  passions :  for  both  their  females  exchanged 
the  natural  use  into  that  against  nature ;  and  in  like 
manner  also  the  males,  having  left  the  natural  use  of  the 
female,  burned  in  their  lust  towards  one  another,  males 
with  males  w^orking  the  indecency,  and  receiving  in  them- 
selves the  recompense  of  their  error,  w^hich  w^as  due. 

The  baser  men's  religious  views  were,  the  viler  was  their  actual 
life.  They  fell  into  unnatural  lusts  even  below  the  level  of  the 
animal  instincts.  Not  even  the  beasts  of  the  field  offend  against 
nature  as  these  men  who  were  made  in  the  image  of  God.  This 
description  of  lust,  sinking  even  below  bestiality,  is  not  over- 
drawn. Indeed,  the  contemporary  classics  abundantly  show  that 
Paul's  account  is  quite  toned  down.  The  apostle  did  not  defile 
his  page  with  an  adequate  recital  of  what  the  classics  describe  in 
the  most  unqualified  language ;  and  seem  even  to  gloat  over. 
The  apostle  counted  it  "  a  shame  even  to  speak  of  the  things  done 
by  them  in  secret"  (Eph.  v,  12) — alas!  not  always  in  "secret." 
The  ancient  heathen  "  gloried  in  their  shame."  In  heathen  lands 
these  abominations  were  not  only  tolerated  and  condoned,  but 
7 


98  EXPOSITION. 

were  sanctioned  and  encouruged  by  their  religion.  It  was  no  im- 
j)eachnient  to  anj'  priest  or  jjriestess  of  any  heathen  God  (except 
barely  the  Vestals  of  Rome)  to  be  guilty  of  the  vilest  offenses 
against  morality;  and  to  many  of  them  such  a  life  was  their 
vowed  and  avowed  service.  Those  things  existed;  and  it  was 
needful  for  the  apostle's  argument  that  he  should  name  them, 
and  trace  them  to  their  origin  in  tlic  sinful  heart;  though  he 
gladly  turns  from  their  contemplation.  True,  some  of  the  vices 
here  described  exist  in  lands  called  Ciiristian,  and  some  of  them 
are  "regulated,"  or  "licensed"  h»j  law!  But  they  exist,  not 
under  the  banner  of  the  Gospel,  but  only  under  its  ban.  Once 
vice  vaunted  itself  and  flaunted  its  flag;  now  evil-doers  put 
screens  before  their  doors  and  darken  their  front  windows. 

Verse  28.  And.  according-  as  they  did  not  approve  to 
have  God  in  recognition,  God  gave  them  up  unto  a  repro- 
bate mind,  to  do  the  things  not  becoming. 

Here  again  we  have  God's  adjusting  the  measure  of  his  deal- 
ings with  man  to  the  measure  of  their  sin.  This  is  well  expressed 
in  Paul's  play  on  the  woi*ds,  approved,  reproved. 

Verses  29,  30,  31.  Having  been  filled  •with  all  unright- 
eousness, wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness ;  full  of 
envy,  murder,  strife,  deceit,  malignity;  whisperers,  slan- 
derers, hateful  towards  God,  insolent,  haughty,  boastful, 
inventors  of  evil  things,  disobedient  to  parents ;  w^ithout 
understanding,  covenant-breakers,  unaffectionate,  unmer- 
ciful. 

The  catalogue  of  vices,  as  given  in  the  Revised  Greek  text, 
and  in  tlie  Authorized,  with  the  doubtful  word  "fornication"  in 
the  second  place,  embraces  twenty-two  distinct  specifications,  the 
same  number  as  there  are  letters  in  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  This  is 
apparently  not  an  accidental  coincidence.  Dr.  J.  Rendel  Harris 
("  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,"  p.  84)  suggests  the  probable  explana- 
tion. In  the  synagogue  service  for  tlie  Day  of  Atonement,  tliere 
was  a  ritual  confession  of  sins,  arranged  alphabetically,  according 
to  the  twenty-two  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  In  "The 
Teaching  of  the  Apostles"  (before  A.  D.  1(X))  there  is  a  similar 
list  of  twenty-two  vices  and  a  parallel  list  of  twenty-two  vicious 
classes.  The  lists  in  Romans,  and  in  "The  Teaching,"  are  not 
identical,  though  there  are  six  words  which  coincide  in  the  two, 


ROMANS  I,  S-2.  99 

and  the  two  catalogues  are  not  close  translations  from  the  Hebrew 
Prayer-Book,  and  they  make  no  attempt  at  an  alphabetic  oi'der ;  but 
the  sameness  of  the  numbers  strongly  suggests  that  both  Paul  and 
the  "Teaching"  made  up  their  lists  with  distinct  reminiscence  of 
the  familiar  synagogue  service.  Paul  gives,  in  Gal.  v,  19,  a  similar 
list  of  seventeen  sins,  but  more  logically  arranged  than  in  Romans ; 
and  another  list  of  eighteen  in  2  Tim.  iii,  2.  There  is  also  a  shorter 
list  of  thirteen  vices  in  Mark  vii,  21.  But  just  as  the  alphabetic 
aiTangement  of  the  Hebrew  list  forbids  any  proper  logical  conse- 
cution, so  these  imitative  lists  are  without  any  systematic  logical 
order;  yet  we  have,  within  the  lists,  occasional  grouping  of  words 
of  similar  sound,  or  of  cognate  meaning. 

It  is  notable  that  in  these  quadruple  lists  of  sins  and  vices, 
there  are  so  few  repetitions.  More  than  fifty  distinct  offenses  are 
named ;  and  these  are  very  far  from  exhausting  the  catalogue.  It 
is  a  sad  commentary  on  the  depravity  of  the  heart,  and  on  the  bad 
lives  of  men. 

Verse  32.  Who,  having  come  to  know  the  judgment  of 
God,  that  they  who  pratice  such  things  are  worthy  of  death, 
not  only  do  them,  nay,  but  also  delight  in  them  who  prac- 
tice them. 

The  heathen  did  not  act  ignorantly.  They  had,  and  have,  suffi- 
cient light  to  know  God's  character,  and  his  decision  that  they  who 
practice  such  sins  as  are  just  named,  are  worthy  of  death.  Yet 
they  not  only  themselves  do  these  things,  but,  what  is  still  worse, 
they  take  gratuitous  pleasure  in  those  tliat  practice  them. 

Such  is  Paul's  summation  of  the  character  and  the  life  of  the 
heathen  woi'ld  as  he  saw  it  in  his  day,  as  we  see  it  in  ours.  He 
does  not  give  the  vile  details  as  found  in  the  classics,  or  found  in 
heathen  lands  to-day ;  but  no  literature  gives,  or  could  give,  a 
more  somber  portraiture  of  human  depravity  and  practice. 


CIIArXER    II, 


Verse  1.  "Wherefore  thou  art  without  excuse,  O  every 
man  that  judgest ;  for  in  what  thing  thou  judgest  the  other, 
thou  condemnest  thyself;  for  thou  that  judgest  him  prac- 
ticest  the  same  things. 

In  the  fii'st  chapter  the  apostle  has  described  and  condemned 
the  Gentile  world.  He  now  turns  upon  the  Jew,  and  declares  him 
equally  sinful,  and  equally  under  condemnation.  The  point  of 
transition  in  the  tliought  and  argument  is  easy.  Tlie  Gentiles  not 
only  do  things  worthy  of  death,  but  juaiijy  them,  and  find  pleasure 
in  those  who  practice  tliem.  The  Jews  nominally  condeinn  these 
things  ;  and  on  the  ground  of  this  speculative  condemnation  think 
themselves  better  than  the  heathen;  yet,  in  point  of  fact,  they 
also  practice  the  very  same  things.  But  one's  character  is  deter- 
mined, and  his  position  before  God  is  ascertained,  not  by  profes- 
sion, but  by  practice.  "  Wherefore,"  says  the  apostle,  addressing 
the  Jew,  though  he  does  not  yet  openly  name  him, — "  Wherefore 
thou  that  condemnest  the  other  \Tbv  inpov,  the  man  of  different 
race,  the  Gentile]  art  inexcusable,  for  thou  practicest  the  very 
same  things." 

Verse  2.  But  we  know  that  the  judgment  of  God  is 
according  to  truth,  upon  them  that  practice  such  things. 

The  words  we  know  are,  as  so  often  elsewhere,  an  expression 
of  a  generally  recognized  truth;  e.  g.,  "  We  know  that  whatsoever 
things  the  Law  says,  it  speaks  to  them  that  are  under  the  Law" 
(Rom.  iii,  19);  "We  know  that  the  Law  is  spiritual"  (Rom. 
vii,  14);  ''We  know  that  all  things  co-opei*ate  for  good  to  them 
that  love  God"  (Rom.  viii,  28).  In  commonplace  truths  like 
these  Paul  means  that  intelligent  men  are  all  of  one  mind;  even 
the  Gentiles  assetit  to  a  jjroposition  as  patent  as  that  of  this  verse. 

The  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth,  (jod  can 
not  mistake  the  facts,  nor  err  in  liis  decision.     "The  Judge  of  all 

100 


ROMANS  II.    .%  4,  5.  101 

the  earth  will  alwui/ii  do  i-ight."  His  judgment,  which  is  not  ac- 
cording to  appearance,  but  according  to  reality,  is  equally  against 
the  heathen  who  "do"  these  things  and  tlie  Jews  who  "  practice" 
them.  Notice  the  stronger  word  "practice"  which  the  apostle 
uses  in  regard  to  the  Jews.  "God  is  not  a  respecter  of  persons." 
His  judgment  is  definitively  against  the  Jews,  even  more  than 
against  the  Gentiles. 

The  phrase  according  to  truth  assumes  that  the  standard  of 
right  is  not  God's  will,  but  lies  back  of  this  will,  and  higher. 
Things  are  not  right  because  God  wills  them ;  but  he  wills  them 
because  they  are  right. 

Verse  3.  But  reckonest  thou  this,  O  man,  that  judg- 
est  them  that  practice  such  things,  and  doest  them,  that 
thou  wilt  escape  the  judgment  of  God? 

The  apostle  in  this  verse  has  interchanged  the  verbs  of  the  last 
verse,  practice,  do,  and  now  he  assigns  the  confirmed  usage  in 
wrong-doing  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  Jews  trusted  in  their  descent  from  Abraham  for  exemp- 
tion from  God's  judgment.  This  was  the  presumption  that  the 
Baptist  rebuked.  "Say  not  within  yourselves  that  we  have 
Abraham  as  our  father."  (Mat.  iii,  9.)  Paul's  language  here,  both 
in  the  verb  reckonest  and  in  the  apostrophe  O  man,  is  objurga- 
tive.  He  would  expose  the  Jews'  exclusive  claim  as  a  delusion. 
The  verb  here  takes  on  the  sense  of  "calculate,"  to  make  a  de- 
liberate estimate:  as  if  the  apostle  said,  "If  God  condemns  the 
Gentiles,  dost  thou,  who  practicest  the  same  things,  coolly  calcu- 
late that  thou  wilt  escape  the  same  judgment?" 

Verses  4,  5.  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  good- 
ness and  forbearance  and  longsuffering,  ignoring  that  the 
goodness  of  God  leads  thee  to  repentance  ?  but  according 
to  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  thou  treasurest  up 
to  thyself  wrath  in  the  day  of  wrath  and  of  revelation  of 
the  just  judgment  of  God. 

The  objurgative  strain  against  the  Jew  still  continues.  "On 
the  ground  of  being  God's  elect,  dost  thou  despise  his  kindness, 
and  forbearance,  and  longsuffering?  Dost  thou,  trusting  to  be 
saved  at  any  rate,  ignore  the  fact  that  his  kindness  is  not. a  license 
to  sin,  but  is  intended  to  lead  thee  to  repentance  for  thy  sins,— 
sins  not  less  gross,  and  more  inexcusable  than  those  of  the  Gen- 


102  EXPOSITION. 

tiles?  But  accoi-ding  to  tliy  obduracy  and  impenitence  of  lieart, 
thou  dost  but  treasure  up  to  thyself  wrath,  to  be  revealed  in  a 
day  of  wrath  and  of  revelation  of  (nxi's  just  judgment." 

Notice  Paul's  word  ignoring.  .\  trutli  may  be  known  witli 
absolute  certainty,  yet,  at  tlie  same  time,  absolutely  ignored. 
This  is  what  Paul  cliarges  upon  the  conceited  Jews.  He  says  to 
them:  "Is  this  your  confidence?  Vain  confidence!  The  Jew 
has  no  immunity  on  the  ground  of  being  a  Jew.  At  the  revelation 
of  God's  just  judgment,  all  men  will  stand  equal  before  him. 
There  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  (Jod."  Listen  to  the  conclusion 
of  the  whole  matter: 

Verses  6-11.  "Who  will  render  to  each  man  according  to 
his  works :  to  them  indeed,  that,  by  patience  in  good  work, 
seek  for  glory  and  honor  and  incorruption,  life  eternal ;  but 
to  those  that  are  factious,  and  disobey  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness,  will  be  wrath  and  indignation, 
affliction  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  naan  that  works 
evil,  both  of  Jew,  first,  and  of  Greek  :  but  glory  and  honor 
and  peace  to  every  man  that  works  good,  both  to  Jew,  first, 
and  to  Greek :  for  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God. 

The  teaching  of  the  passage  is  of  God's  equal  dealing  witli  all 
men,  irresi)ective  of  birth  or  caste.  A  paraphrase  will  best  ex- 
hibit the  meaning:  "God  will  requite  to  every  man,  Jew  as  well 
as  Gentile,  not  according  to  the  man's  assumption  of  superior 
privilege,  but  according  to  his  works.  To  those  of  whatever 
race,  Jew  or  Gentile,  who  in  the  way  of  patient  perseverance  in 
good  work,  seek  for  glory,  and  honor,  and  incorruption,  he  will 
give  life  eternal ;  but  to  those,  of  whatever  race,  who  are  men  of 
captiousness,  and  a-ssumption,  and  disobedient  to  the  truth,  but 
obedient  to  unrighteousness,  will  be  requited  wrath  and  indigna- 
tion, aflliction  and  distress, — upon  every  soul  of  man  that  works 
evil,  both  of  Jew,  first,  and  of  Greek.  But  God's  approval,  and 
honor,  and  peace,  will  be  to  every  man  that  works  good,  both  to 
Jew,  first,  and  to  Greek.  For  with  (Jod  there  is  no  recognition  of 
liuman  distinctions."  The  arrogant  Jew  and  the  despised  Gentile 
are  alike  to  him.  In  the  eleventh  verse,  the  word  persons  does 
not  mean  individuals,  but  artificial  distinctions  of  race,  or  caste, 
or  rank.  This  is  always  the  meaning  of  the  woi-d  "  persons  "  with 
the  verbs  respect,  accept,  regard.  This  principle  here  announced, 
and  many  times  reitei-ated  in  the  New  Testament,   saps  the  arro- 


ROMANS  II.    12,  13.  lOB 

gance  and  complacency  of  the  Jew.  It  puts  him  and  the  GentiJe 
on  a  perfect  equality  before  God:  the  Jew  has  no  inherent  advan- 
tage ;  only  certain  institutional  opportunities.  He  needs  justifi- 
cation from  guilt  equally  with  the  Gentile ;  and  must  attain  it,  if 
at  all,  in  the  same  way. 

Verse  12.  For  as  many  as  sinned  ■without  law,  with- 
out law  also  will  perish ;  and  as  many  as  sinned  w^ithin 
law,  through  law  will  be  judged. 

The  first  clause  describes  the  status  and  the  condemnation  of 
the  Gentile  world  ;  the  second  clause  describes  the  status  and  the 
condemnation  of  the  Jews.  Both  have  sinned,  but  under  different 
circumstances,  and  with  different  demerit.  The  Gentiles  had 
suflBcieiit  light,  the  light  of  nature,  yet  sinned  ;  they  will  be  con- 
demned accordingly,  yet  not  by  a  law  of  which  they  were  ignorant. 
And  the  Jews,  who  sinned  under  a  law  specifically  recorded,  will 
be  judged  according  to  the  more  exacting  provisions  of  that  law. 

Verse  13.  For  not  the  hearers  of  law  are  just  with 
God ;  but  the  doers  of  law  will  be  justified. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  through  this  entire  paragraph  (verses 
12-16)  the  word  law  is  found  nine  times  without  the  article  and 
but  twice  with  it.  In  this  feature  the  translation  here  given  cor- 
rectly represents  the  Greek  ;  and  we  may  safely  assume  that  it  is 
exact  to  the  apostle's  thought.  The  difference  in  concept  between 
"law"  and  "the  Law,"  whether  in  Paul's  writings,  or  anywhere 
else,  is  marked,  and  can  be  as  exactly  expressed  in  English  as  in 
Greek.  The  word  "law,"  without  the  article,  is  qualitative,  and 
always  expresses  the  concept  of  law  generically,  in  its  most  unre- 
stricted sense  "  Law  "  is  the  expression  of  universal  and  eternal  ^ 
principles,  ethical,  mnate,  and  dominant  for  all  beings,  for  God, 
and  angels,  and  men,  alike.  It  is  read  in  nature  and  in  our  own 
moral  constitution.  The  Law,  with  the  article,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  quantitative,  specific,  statutory,  read  only  in  the  book.  "  Law  " 
is  for  all  circumstances,  and  forever;  it  never  changes,  nor  loses, 
or  gains,  any  circumstantial  element.  "  The  Law  "  is  a  particular 
code  (whether  of  God,  or  man)  enacted  for  a  given  set  of  cir- 
cumstances, local,  temporary,  subject  to  additional  legislation  or 
to  repeal.  "  Law  "  takes  note  of  motives:  "  the  Law  "  takes  note  of 
oiert  actions.  "Law,"  which  is  always  moral  law,  prescribes  the 
ideal   maximum  of   one's  ability  and   performance ;   "  the  Law," 


104  EXPOSITION. 

which  is  always  statute  law,  establishes  a  specified  minimum  of 
performance.  "Law,"  as  in  the  (lolden  Jtule,  says:  "Thou 
shalt;"  "  the  Law,"  as  in  the  Decalogue,  says:  "  Thou  shalt  not." 
In  the  Pauline  usage,  the  Mosaic  legislation  (of  circumcision  and 
rites)  is  always  spoken  of  as  "  the  Law ; "  but  the  naked  word 
"  law,"  without  the  article,  expresses  the  eternal  abstract  prin- 
ciple as  defined  above  ;  or  if  it  alludes  to  the  Law  of  Moses,  as  in 
this  verse,  it  alludes  to  it,  not  as  the  Law  of  outward  observances, 
but  on  its  moral  side,  so  far  forth,  an  exj)ression  of  the  eternal, 
universal  law  of  n'ctitude.  We  i)rint  "law"  for  the  universal 
qualitative  word,  "Law"  for  the  statutory  quantitative  word. 

The  expression.  The  hearers  of  law  is  spoken  of  the  Jews, 
who  on  every  Sabl)ath-day  heard  "the  Law"  read  in  the  syna- 
gogue (Acts  XV,  21) ;  and  heard,  under  the  letter  of  that  statute 
Law  a  revelation  of  the  higher  law  of  morals ;  and  it  is  '*  the  doers 
of  this  higher  law  "  that  will  be  justified. 

The  use  of  the  two  words  just  and  justified,  in  the  contrast- 
ive  clauses  of  this  verse  shows  that  they  are  equivalent  in  mean- 
ing,— "  aquit — aquitted."  The  verse  expresses  the  ideal  condition 
of  things ;  and  we  are  not  to  understand  that  Paul  concedes  that 
any  man  is  really  justified  by  works  of  law;  for  elsewhere  he 
definitively  declares  the  contrary:  "  By  works  of  law  will  no  flesh 
be  justified."  (Gal.  ii,  16.)  The  apostle's  thought  is  merely  to 
declare  the  relative  superiority  of  doing  to  hearing;  the  superiority 
of  a  sincere,  though  legally  insufficient  obedience  of  a  heathen,  to 
the  more  intelligent,  but  barren,  service  of  the  Jew.  Yet  any 
man,  whether  heathen  or  Jew,  who  does  the  best  he  can.  will  be 
justified.  "In  every  nation  he  that  fears  God  and  works  right- 
eousness is  acceptable  to  him."    (Acts  x,  35.) 

Verse  14.  For  whenever  Gentiles,  who  have  no  law, 
do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  Law,  these,  having  no 
law,  are  law  to  themselves. 

The  word  Gentiles,  which  in  the  Greek  language  was  first 
used  in  the  sense  of  "nations"  generically,  including  Jews,  was 
then,  in  Jewish  usage,  narrowed  to  the  sense  of  non-Jewish,  the 
heathen,  nations,  which  is  the  usual  sense;  and  then,  sometimes, 
as  here,  narrowed  still  further  to  the  sense  of  iyidividuals  of  these 
nations.  Such,  when  the  word  has  no  article,  is  the  sense  of  the 
word  in  the  Bible.  Thus  Paul  tells  the  Corinthian  converts:  "Ye 
know  that  ye  were  Gentiles."     (1  Cor.  xii,  2.)     The  term  Gentiles, 


ROMANS  II,  15.  105 

denoting  all  nations  except  the  Jews,  carried,  with  it,  at  first,  the 
implication  that  those  nations  were  also  heathen,*  pagan,  idola- 
trous. It  was  only  after  the  mission  of  Paul,  that  tliis  offensive 
Jewish  sense  was  gradually  dropped,  and  the  word  retained  only  its 
ethnological  sense.  All  nations  except  Jews,  are  still  "  Gentiles  ;" 
but  not  all  nations  are  now  heathen. 

The  word  "  Gentiles  "  without  the  article,  does  not  express  the 
totality  of  the  class,  but  is  only  a  descriptive  term.  Not  all  Gentiles, 
but  only  some  (and  in  fact  but  very  few),  "observe  the  things  of 
the  Law  ;'■  and  not  then  all  the  things  of  the  Law,  nor  always,  but 
only  certam  moral  precepts  belonging  in  common  to  natural  re- 
ligion and  to  revealed  religion.  But  their  conscientious  obedience 
to  what  they  think  right  is  at  best  only  a  partial  and  relative  ful- 
fillment of  the  moral  law,  such  as  is  possible  by  "  nature" — that 
is,  apart  from  the  surer  light  of  revelation — and,  of  course,  it  falls 
far  short  of  "legal  justification."  Paul's  words  elsewhere  are  de- 
cisive on  this  point  against  Jew  and  Gentile  alike.  Yet  though 
their  religion  does  not  come  up  to  the  inward  spirituality  of  God's 
law,  such  Gentiles  (alas,  how  few!)  doing  the  best  they  can, 
"  become  law  to  themselves,"  and  in  the  gospel  economy  their 
defective  obedience  is  accepted  through  Christ. 

Verse  15.  "Who  show  the  works  of  the  Law  written  in 
their  hearts,  their  consciousness  bearing- witness  w^ith  them, 
and  their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing,  or,  also,  ac- 
quitting them. 

Heathen  who  aim  to  do  right  practically  demonstrate  for 
themselves  that  the  gist  of  the  Law,  if  not  the  letter  of  it,  is  writ- 
ten, not  on  lifeless  tables  of  stone,  as  in  the  Decalogue  of  the  Jews, 
but  in  their  hearts.  And  their  consciousness  bears  them  testimony 
that  amid  abundant  failures,  their  purpose  is  to  do  right ;  their 
thoughts,  in  parley  one  with  another,  now  accusing,  or,  also  ac- 
quitting them. 

The  Greek  language  uses  the  same  wordt  for  the  differentiate 
concepts  consciousness  and  conscience;  the  intuition  of  one's 
thoughts,  and  the  intuition  of  one's  right  and  wrong  doing.     The 

'•Indeed  this  very  word  "heathen"  Is  Itself  derived  from  the  Greek 
word  for  Gentiles,— e^«";.  Eih7i-e;  and  not  as  Vosslus  (followed  by  Trench 
and  the  English  Dictionaries),  from  the  local  word  Heat/i,—a,s  If  "the 
dwellers  on  the  heath." 


106  EXPOSITIOX. 

latter  sense  has  prown  out  of  the  former ;  and  both  are  found  in 
the  New  Testament.  The  former  is  the  sense  of  the  words  in  tliis 
verse,  and  in  tlie  same  expression  in  tiie  ninth  chapter— "  My 
consciousness  testifying  witii  me."  (Rom.  ix,  1.)  Cicero  attached 
tiu'  same  double  concepts  to  the  Latin  word  anucientia,  which  he 
first  used  in  the  Latin  language,  as  a  representation  of  the  Greek 
word. 

Verse  16.  In  the  day  when  God  will  judge  the  secrets 
of  men,  according  to  my  gospel,  through  Jesus  Christ. 

The  connection  of  this  vers?  is  uncertain.  The  Authorized, 
and  most  critics,  throw  verses  14  and  15  into  a  parentliesis,  and 
join  verse  16  to  verse  13.  The  Revisi'd  cancels  the  parenthesis, 
and  makes  this  verse  a  temporal  modifer,  not  of  the  previous 
clause,  but  of  the  entire  paragraph.  The  apostle's  thought  goes 
forward  to  the  last  day  when  all  classes  of  men,  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, will  stand  before  God,  and  when  God  will  judge  them, 
not  by  their  outioard  distinctions,  but  by  their  inward,  hidden, 
character. 

By  the  words  according  to  my  gospel,  Paul  emphatically  and 
sliarply  distinguishes  "  the  gospel  whicli  he  preached"  fi-om  that 
of  the  other  apostles.  It  was  a  distinction  that  he  needed  to 
make  over  and  over  again.  He  uses  this  terse  expression,  "ac- 
cording to  my  gospel,"  in  two  other  places,— in  Rom.  xvi,  25,  and 
2  Tim.  ii,  8;  and  he  uses  it  substantially,  again,  in  many  places 
more,  as,  for  example:  "The  gospel,  to  which  I  was  appointed  a 
herald,  and  ajiostle,  and  teacher  of  Gentiles"  (2  Tim.  i,  11).  It  is 
this  last  expression,  "apostle  of  the  Gentiles,"  which  marks  the 
unique  character  of  "  his  gosi)el,"  as  distinguished  from  the  gospel 
of  his  fellow-ai)ostles.  The  other  apostles  were,  like  Paul  liimself 
U|)  to  the  date  of  his  conversion,  wedded  to  Judaism.  He  calls 
himself  "a  zealot  for  God."  (Acts  xxii,  3.)  But  some  of  them,  un- 
like Paul  afti?r  his  conversion,  never  lost  their  bias  towards  the 
Jews,  and  none  of  them  were  entirely  free  from  it  until  their  peo- 
ple had  finally  rejected  Christ.  They  doubtless  expected  in  some 
vague  way  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  to  Christ;  but  they 
thought  of  Christianity  only  as  develo|)ed  Judaism,  and  that  the 
Gcntih'S  must  come  to  Christ  by  the  door  of  circumcision.  But 
Paul  from  the  first  of  his  apostolate  saw  that  Judaism  was  only  a 
provisional  scheme,  of  a  late  date  in  God's  plan;  and  that  the 
gospel  antedated  it,  and  was  from  eternity  God's  only  plan.     Paul 


ROMANS  II.    17-20.  107 

calls  it  "a  mystery  "—that  is,  a  secret,  an  esoteric  doctrine— 
"  which  has  been  hidden  from  the  eternal  ages ;  but  has  now  been 
manifested  ...  to  make  known  the  riches  of  this  mystery  among 
the  Gentiles."  (Col.  i,  26;  Rom.  xvi,  25.)  This  is  the  large  and 
gracious  gospel  which  Paul  right  proudly  calls  "  my  gospel." 

Verses  17-20.  But  if  thou  art  named  Jew,  and  rest- 
est  upon  law,  and  boastest  in  God,  and  knowest  his 
will,  and  approvest  the  things  that  excel,  being  instructed 
out  of  the  Law,  and  trustest  as  to  thyself  that  thou  art  a 
guide  of  blind  men,  a  Hght  of  them  that  are  in  darkness, 
an  instructor  of  foolish  men,  a  teacher  of  babes,  having 

in  the  Law  the  form  of  the  knowledge  and  the  truth ; . 

In  the  seventeenth  verse,  and  so  generally  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  word  Jew  is  a  name  of  honor,  expressing  citizenship  and  re- 
ligious fellowship  in  the  chosen  people.  It  was  after  Paul's  time 
that  the  name  "Jew"  acquired  in  Christian  phraseology  its  op- 
probrious sense.  John  is  the  only  one  of  the  New  Testament 
writers  that  uses  it  in  a  semi-opprobrious  sense  ;  and  his  Gospel 
was  written  late  in  the  century,  after  the  alienation  of  the  Jews 
was  complete. 

These  four  verses  (17  to  20)  constitute  the  protasis  to  an 
equally  long  apodosis  in  verses  21-24 ;  and  the  entire  paragraph, 
17-24,  should  be  read  as  one  logical  whole.  The  protasis  specifies 
the  ten  or  twelve  points  of  Jewish  confidence,  or  arrogance ;  the 
apodosis  consists  of  five  or  six  rapid,  trenchant,  questions,  which 
leave  the  Jew  abashed  and  silenced.  The  apostle's  address  is 
pointed  and  personal.  The  emphatic  pronoun  thou  singles  out 
the  offender,  and  arraigns  him  for  transgressing  law  and  dis- 
honoring God,  while  at  the  same  time  boasting  of  law  and  of  God. 
Paul's  words,  if  thou  art  named  "Jew,"  imply  no  doubt  on 
the  subject.  The  conjunction  if  (d)  here  used  is  a  word  of  argu- 
ment, not  of  contingency.  With  the  indicative  mode,  it  repre- 
sents the  thing  supposed  as  an  objective  fact;  and  it  is  almost 
equivalent  to  "since,"  or  "inasmuch  as."  Paul  concedes  that 
these  claims  of  the  Jew  were  all  matters  of  fact.  The  creed  of  the 
Jew  was  orthodox.  Jesus  commanded,  "  Whatsoever  things  the 
scribes  say,  do."  The  reason  for  Christ's  command,  and  for  Paul's 
concession,  is,  that  the  Jews  accepted  the  teachings  of  revelation, 
being  instructed  out  of  the  Law.  True,  they  overlaid  the  Law 
with  the  traditions  of  men,  and  they  did  not  keep  the  Law  in  its 


108  EXf'OSTTin.y. 

Bpiritual  iiitfiit;  but  first  of  all,  tln^  Jt'W  was  proud  of  knowing; 
the  Law,  not  merely  as  a  ritual,  but  as  a  system  of  ethics.  Even 
a  Pharisee  could  say,  "To  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself,  is  much  more  than  all  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices."    (Mark  xi,  33.) 

Verses  21-24.  Dost  thou,  therefore  that  teachest  an- 
other, not  teach  thyself?  Dost  thou  that  preachest  not  to 
steal,  steal  ?  Dost  thou  that  sayest  not  to  commit  adultery, 
commit  adultery?  Dost  thou  that  abominatest  idols,  pil- 
lage their  temples?  Dost  thou  that  boastest  in  law,  through 
the  transgression  of  the  Law  dishonor  God?  For  the  name 
of  God  on  account  of  you  is  blasphemed  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, as  it  has  been  written. 

The  word  another  in  verse  21,  is  the  same  as  in  the  first  verse 
of  this  cha|)ter,  and  does  not  mean  anotlier  {&\\ov)  of  the  same 
class  witli  the  Jews,  but  a  man  of  a  different  class  (irepov),  a  Gen- 
tile. The  sense  is,  "Thou  that  teachest  the  Gentile,  dost  thou  not 
first  fashion  thy  own  life  according  to  thy  teaching  ?" 

The  point  of  these  questions  lies  in  the  inconsistency  of  the 
profession  of  the  Jews  witli  their  actual  lives.  The  term  of  the 
address  Thou  that  teachest,  shows  that  Paul  has  the  rabbis, 
scribes,  doctors  of  the  law,  in  thought,  rather  than  the  common 
people.  The  Jews,  as  a  nation,  were  very  much  better  than  any 
other  people  in  the  world  ;  and  the  common  people  were  V)etter 
than  the  rulers.  But  those  leaders,  and  rulers,  and  teachers  of 
the  people,  who  ought  to  have  been  models  of  upright  living,  were 
often  the  worst  of  the  nation  ;  and  their  improbity,  unchasteness, 
and  outrages,  were  frequent  and  infamous.  Yet  there  wei'e  noble 
and  gracious  exceptions,  such  as  Paul's  teacher,  Gamaliel,  Nico- 
demus,  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea. 

The  question.  Dost  thou  pillage  temples?  alludes  to  the 
command  of  Moses  to  the  Jews,  "  to  burn  tlie  idols  of  the  heathen, 
and  not  to  take  their  votive  offerings  of  silver  and  gold."  (Deut. 
vii,  25.)  Josephus  correctly  explains  this,  "not  to  steal  what  be- 
longs to  strange  1  heathen]  temples,  nor  to  take  any  of  the  gifts 
dedicated  to  any  god."  (Ant.  IV,  8-10.)  Such  is  Paul's  meaning 
in  this  passage:  "Thou  that  professest  to  abominate  idols,  dost 
thou  make  gain  to  thyself  by  looting  their  temples  ?" 

In  verse  23,  notice  the  word  law,  first  without  the  article,  and 
then  with  it ;  and  interpret  accoi-dingly.    The  Jews  boasted  in  hav- 


ROyfANS  II,  25.  109 

ing  and  in  knowing  law;  but  inconsistently  dishonored  God  by 
transgressing  every  commandment  in  the  Decalogue.  Malachi, 
the  last  of  the  prophets  (397  B.  C),  sums  up  the  history  of  Is- 
rael's sinfulness:  "  Even  from  the  days  of  your  fathers,  ye  have 
gone  away  from  mine  ordinances,  and  have  not  kept  them." 
(Mai.  iii,  7.) 

The  word  for  in  the  twenty-fourth  verse  connects  back,  es- 
pecially to  the  preceeding  verb,  dishonorest  thou  God?.  It  is 
a  quotation  from  Isaiah:  "  My  name  continually  everyday  is  blas- 
phemed." (Isaiah  Iii,  5.)  And  Ezekiel  says  in  still  more  explicit 
words:  "  When  I  scattered  them  among  the  heathen,  they  pro- 
faned my  holy  name ;  in  that  tli'^  heathen  said  of  them,  These  are 
the  people  of  Jehovah,  and  are  come  forth  out  of  his  land" 
(Ezek.  xxxvi,  20);  that  is,  as  Paul  interprets  these  prophetic  ut- 
terances. The  proverbial  wickedness  of  the  Jews  led  the  heathen 
to  judge  amiss  of  Jehovah's  character,  and  to  blaspheme  his  holy 
name, — "  Like  people,  like  god." 

Verse  25.  For  circumcision  indeed  profits,  if  thou  be  a 
practicer  of  law :  but  if  thou  be  a  transgressor  of  law,  thy 
circumcision  has  become  uncircumcision. 

The  conjunction  if  (fie),  used  in  both  clauses  of  this  verse, 
and  in  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse,  is,  unlike  the  conjunction 
of  reality  in  the  seventeenth  verse,  the  conjunction  of  merely  sub- 
jective possibility ;  and  the  matter  that  comes  under  the  cover 
of  this  conjunction  is  contingent,  or  unreal ;  and  the  unreality 
in  the  concept  is  further  expressed  by  the  subjunctive  mode  in 
the  verb, — if  thou  be. 

The  word  circumcision  is  sometimes  with  the  article,  "The 
Circumcision,"  a  concrete  designation  of  the  covenant  people,  the 
Jews,  over  against  the  Gentile  world ;  which,  conversely,  is  then 
called  "The  Uncircumcision."  (Gal.  ii,  7-10.)  But  here  the  word 
first  without  the  article,  and  then  with  it  lliterally,  the  circum- 
cision of  thee]  designates  the  covenant  rite  by  which  the  Abra- 
hamic  family  was  consecrated,  set  apart  from  the  mass  of  mankind, 
to  God:  a  rite  which  Paul  says  profits  the  recipient,  yet  surely  not 
materially,  ex  opera  operato,  but  only  in  its  spiritual  significance — 
if  thou  be  a  practicer  of  law. 

This  rite  stood  to  the  Jewish  Church  precisely  as  baptism 
stands  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  was  only  a  sign  (Rom.  iv,  11), 
and  had  no  saving  power  in  itself.     Here,  also,  we  must  take  the 


no  EXPOSITION. 

word  law,  witliout  the  article,  in  its  widest,  ethical  sense,  and 
not  siu'cificallj"  as  "  the  Law "  of  Moses,  however  j)ersistently 
Jewish  thought  and  prepossessions  may  have  confused  the  two 
concepts. 

The  Jews  lield  that  circumcision  of  the  Hesh  was  in  itself  a 
saving  ordinance,  self-operative,  aside  from  the  j)ersonal  character 
of  the  recipicMit.  All  Ji'vvs  were  then  to  be  saved,  as  descendants 
from  Abraham,  members  of  the  elect  nation — all,  except  heretics 
and  apostates,  and  the  Rabbis  held  that  even  these  could  not  go 
down  to  hell  until  an  angel  had  canceled  the  physical  sign  in 
their  flesh.  (Meyer,  Kom.,  p.  102.)  But  Paul  says  to  the  Jew  :  If, 
having  come  under  the  seal  of  circumcision  and  obligation  to 
keep  the  Law,  thou  be  a  transgressor  of  law,  then  thou  hast  lost 
all  the  sujjposed  vantage-ground  ov»'r  the  heathen,  the  seal  is 
broken,  and  thy  Jewish  circumcision  has  become  the  same 
[that  is,  as  useless]  as  Gentile  uncircumcision.  The  equity  of 
this  is  apparent  to  any  but  a  Jew  of  the  older  synagogue,  or  to 
the  Pharisees  of  the  modern  sacramentarian  Churches ;  and  the 
converse  is  also  apparent,  as  Paul  declares  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  26.  If,  therefore,  the  Uncircumcision  observe  the 
requirements  of  the  Law,  will  not  his  uncircumcision  be 
reckoned  unto  circumcision? 

The  Uncircumcision  is  the  Gentile  world  at  large,  and  the 
word  is  generally  used  as  if  in  the  plural  number ;  but  here  it  is  in 
the  singular,  and  means  the  ideal  Gentile.  We  have  seen  that 
the  conjunction  here  is  the  word  of  contingency,  expressing  a 
case  not  real,  but  merely  conceived  of — "in  the  case  that." 
Yet  it  is  not  Paul's  thought  that  this  Gentile  observance  of  the 
law,  even  if  it  were  realizable,  is  more  tiian  formal,  external;  as 
when  Confucius  or  Socrates  worked  righteousness  to  the  best  of 
his  light  and  ability.  Such  uninstructed  Gentiles  as  do,  by  the 
light  of  natural  religion,  the  things  (some  of  the  things)  of  the  Law, 
are  acceptable  to  God  ;  and  in  their  case  their  uncircumcision,  that 
is,  their  lack  of  formal  consecration,  will  be  reckoned  to  them 
unto  circumcision — as  good  as  the  circumcision  of  the  Jews.  Cir- 
cumcision (like  baptism)  is,  at  the  best,  but  a  formal  rite,  the  seal 
of  a  covenant,  and  has  no  saving  virtue.  Paul  does  not  yet  intro- 
duce the  mediation  of  Christ  as  the  jjrocuring  element  of  salvation 
for  Gentile  or  Jew;  but  looks,  so  far  forth,  only  at  the  receptive 
attitude  of  the  heart,  and  an  external  formal  obedience  to  the 


ROMANS  II.    S7,  SS,  S9.  Ill 

Law;  and  certainly  not  at  a  sinless  conformity  to  the  spiritual 
law.  Such  a  man's  uncircumcision  will  be  counted  unto  cir- 
cumcision. Though  uncircumcised,  the  seeker  after  God  is  put 
on  a  level  with  the  man  of  the  covenant.  This  measure  of  equity 
has  always  characterized  God's  dealings  with  men.  Naaman  the 
Syrian,  the  woman  of  Syrophenicia,  Cornelius  the  centurion,  and 
the  centurion  at  Capernaum,  are  surely  and  suggestive  illustra- 
tions. Paul  found  such  men  wherever  he  went— "  Of  the  devout 
Greeks  a  great  multitude."     (Acts  xvii,  4.) 

Verse  27.  And  the  Uncircumcision  which  is  from  na- 
ture, if  it  fulfills  the  Law,  will  judge  thee  who  through  the 
letter  and  circumcision  art  transgressor  of  law. 

The  expression  through  letter  and  circumcision  is  a  hen- 
diadys,  meaning  "with  literal  circumcision;"  that  is,  with  the 
outward  ritual  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  and  not  with  the  inward 
or  spiritual  circumcision  of  the  heart,  as  in  verse  29.  The  apostle's 
meaning  is,  that  the  Gentile,  who  is  not  "circumcised  after  the 
manner  of  Moses,"  but  retains,  "  from  nature,"  his  physical  non- 
consecration,  but  who  fulfills  the  Law,  will,  by  this  fulfillment, 
rise  up  in  judgment  and  condemn  the  Jew,  who  with  all  his  literal 
conformity  to  ritual  law  is  yet  a  transgressor  of  the  higher  moral 
law. 

Verses  28,  29.  For  the  Jew  in  the  outward  man  is  not 
a  Jew;  nor  yet  the  circumcision  in  the  outward  man,  in 
flesh,  is  circumcision  ;  nay,  but  the  Jew  in  the  inward  man, 
is  a  Jew,  and  circumcision  is  of  heart,  in  spirit,  not  letter ; 
of  whom  the  praise  is  not  from  man,  nay,  but  from  God. 

The  passage  is  a  good  example  of  Paul's  terseness  of  utter- 
ance, and  of  the  antithetic  structure  of  his  sentences.  The  literal 
translation  here  given  is  as  clear  as  any  of  the  usual  paraphrases, 
and  better  preserves  the  emphases  in  the  several  clauses. 

The  conjunction  for  refers  to  the  literal  "  Uncircumcision"  in 
the  twenty-seventh  verse;  and  the  following  clause  is  exegetieal 
of  this  word  and  of  the  thought  in  the  verse.  The  sense  is  plain : 
"For  it  is  not  the  Jew  in  the  outward  man,  who  is  a  Jew  in  the 
inward  man,  in  spiritual  reality;  nor  is  it  the  literal  circumcision 
in  the  outward  man,  that  is  spiritual,  real,  circumcision:  but  the 
Jew  in  secret,  in  the  hidden  man,  is  the  real  spiritual  Jew  ;  and 
the  circumcision,  not  of  the  foreskin,  but  of  the  heart,  is  the  real 


112  EXPOSITION. 

circumcision,  in  spirit,  nut  in  letter.  Of  such  a  'Jew,'  the  praise 
is  not  from  man.  but  from  God."  All  thi.s  is  in  the  exact  line  of 
Pauls  thoughts  elsewhere.  He  tells  the  (ialatians:  "In  Christ 
Jesus  neither  circumcision  avails  aught,  nor  uncircumcision  ;  but 
faith  working  through  love."  (Gal.  v,  6.)  And  to  the  Philippians 
he  says,  "  We  I  (icnlileg\  are  the  (real)  circumcision,  who  serve  by 
the  Spirit  of  Gtxi,  and  boast  I  not  in  rites,  but)  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
trust  not  in  flesh;"  i.  e.,  in  carnal  ordinances.     (Phil,  iii,  3.) 


CHAPTER    III, 


Verse  1.  Jew:  "What,  then,  is  the  superiority  of  the 
Jew?  or  what  is  the  profit  of  circumcision?" 

The  first  chapter  (verses  19-32)  described  the  moral  conditions 
of  the  Gentiles ;  that  they  are  corrupt  by  nature,  and,  notwith- 
standing the  light  of  natural  religion,  are  desperately  wicked. 
The  second  chapter  showed  that  the  Jews  are  equally  corrupt  by 
nature  ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  light  of  religion,  and  their  boast 
of  a  national  superiority  over  the  Gentiles,  are  yet  equally  wicked: 
"They  condemn  the  Gentiles,  and  practice  the  same  things." 

The  conclusion  reached,  in  the  second  chapter,  that  there  is  no 
saving  virtue  in  circumcision,  in  which  the  Jews  especially  boasted, 
might  imply  that  they  have  no  religious  advantage  over  the  Gen- 
tiles. In  the  first  part  of  the  third  chapter  the  Jew  presents  his 
objections  to  the  apostle's  teaching.  These  several  objections  and 
the  apostle's  replies  are  given  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue.  The  dis- 
cussion, thrown  into  this  form,  has  an  almost  dramatic  liveliness 
and  vigor.  The  assailant's  rapid  questions  and  tiie  apostle's  rapid 
rejoinders  seem  like  the  quick  thrusts  of  two  skillful  swordsmen. 

The  several  parts  of  the  dialogue  are  clearly  distributed  be- 
tween the  two  disputants  as  follows : 

Jew.    Verses  1,  3,  5,  7,  9  (first  clause). 

Paul.     Verses  2,  4,  6,  8,  9  (second  clause),  seqq. 

The  dialogue  between  the  Jewish  antagonist  and  the  apostle  is 
resumed  in  chapter  x,  14— to  chapter  xi,  11.  Perhaps  too,  Paul's 
ever-present  consciousness  of  a  disputant,  whose  thoughts  at  least 
are  known  and  expressed,  if  his  actual  words  are  not  quoted,  will 
best  explain  the  frequent  controversial  questions  found  through- 
out the  epistle.  I  have  so  indicated  them  in  the  text,  with  the 
proper  paragraphing  and  quotation  marks;  e.  g.,  Rom.  vi,  1,  15; 
vii,  7;  xiii,  9,  14. 

The  question  which  the  apostle  here  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
the  Jewish  gainsayer  implies  that  the  Jews  claimed  by  their  de- 
8  113 


114  EXPOSITION. 

scent  from  Abraham,  and  call  as  the  theocratic  nation,  and  by 
their  circumcision,  a  racial  and  personal  superiority  over  the  Gen- 
tiles. This  superiority,  they  thought,  was  one  which  gave  them 
religious  acceptance  with  God  ;  and  their  circumcision  entitled 
them  to  his  mercy  here  and  hereafter.  And  so  to  the  apostle's 
teaching  in  the  second  cliapter  we  liave  tlie  Jcnv's  indignant  re- 
joinder, "  If  such  is  the  state  of  the  case,  where  then  is  our 
superiority?" 

Verse  2.  Paul:  Much  in  every  [pertinent]  way:  first, 
indeed,  that  they  were  intrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God. 

In  this  verse,  Paul  concedes  that  the  Jews  have,  fi-om  their 
circumcision,  a  just  claim  of  superiority  over  the  Gentiles;  not 
a  superiority  of  racial  or  personal  desert,  but  only  of  national 
priority,  and  of  greater  religious  opportunity.  Their  circumcision 
formally  consecrated  them  to  God  ;  but  separates  them  from  the 
heathen  world  only  in  their  incidental  circumstaYices. 

The  apostle  names  herp  only  a  single  point  of  their  superior- 
ity— namely,  that  they  were  intrusted  with  the  divine  ora- 
cles. This  one  point  was  sufficient  for  the  present  argument;  yet 
the  adverb  first  implies  that  the  apostle  had  it  in  thought  to 
mention  otlier  privileges ;  but  the  eager  rusli  of  the  discussion 
prevented,  and  the  enumeration  is  not  continued  here.  But  in 
the  ninth  chapter  he  gives  a  fuller  answer,  and  names  as  the 
national  prerogatives  of  Israel  eight  other  important  points  in 
which  the  Jews  were  superior  to  the  Gentiles:  "The  adoption, 
and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  Law,  and 
the  temple-service,  and  the  promises,  and  the  fathers,  and  the 
descent  of  Christ,"— all  of  them,  like  the  one  here  named,  inci- 
dents of  their  religious  circumstances,  and  not  matters  of  intrinsic 
pei'sonal  desert.     (Rom.  ix,  4,  5.) 

The  oracles  here  named  were,  of  course,  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  at  lai-ge ;  but  specifically,  in  Paul's  present  mention  of 
them,  the  prophecies  of  Christ,  and  of  the  accession  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. This  is  clear  from  the  "  unfaith  "  in  them  as  confessed  by 
the  Jew  in  verse  3.  No  doubt  the  Jews  accepted  the  volume  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  in  its  entirety,  including  these  Messi- 
anic prophecies ;  but  they  did  not  accept  the  Christian  interpreta- 
tion of  them  as  fulfilled  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ.  No  doubt, 
too,  they  accepted  the  future  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world ; 
but  their  expectations  on  this  point  were  vague,  and  tliey  were 


ROMANS  III,  3.  115 

very  far  from  accepting,  as  taught  by  Paul,  the  immediate  uncon- 
ditional admission  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church,  on  an  equality 
with  the  Jews  themselves.  It  was  here  that  the  Jewish  people 
stumbled.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  was  too  liberal  for  them:  "  They 
stumbled  against  the  stone  of  stumbling."     (Rom.  ix,  32.) 

The  verb  were  intrusted  is  very  expressive ;  and  is  decisive 
of  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  the  general  purposes  of  God.  They 
were  an  elect  people  ;  yet  they  were  elect  not  for  themselves,  but 
as  ''trustees''  for  the  nations  (Gentiles)  at  large.  Judaism  was  a 
provincial  dispensation,  preparatory  to  the  gospel.  The  Jews  were 
intended  as  a  Missionary  Church,  to  carry  the  knowledge  of  God 
to  the  world.  (Rom.  ix,  22-24.)  How  infinitely  they  fell  below 
their  call  is  shown  by  their  repeated  religious  apostasy,  such  as 
invariably  characterizes  a  non-propagandist  Church.  Religious 
activity  is  the  condition  of  life  and  growth.  The  Jews  did  not 
desire  the  conversion  and  accession  of  the  Gentiles,  only  their  sub- 
jugation ;  and  they  did  not  communicate  to  them  their  oracles 
which  prophesied  the  Messiah  and  the  incoming  of  the  world  ;  or, 
if  they  sought  "proselytes"  (as  they  began  to  do  before  Christ), 
they  sought  them  not  from  a  love  of  souls,  but  for  the  sake  of 
added  worldly  influence  and  power.  Notice  the  marked  contrast 
between  Christianity  and  Judaism.  Christianity,  a  missionary 
Church,  marches  to  the  conquest  of  the  world;  the  Jews,  though 
once  a  proselyting  Church,  have  now,  for  sixteen  centuries,  barely 
held  their  own,  by  propagation,  not  by  propagandism.  Judaism 
has  absolutely  ceased  to  seek  converts ;  and  its  only  future  is  dis- 
integration and  absorption  into  Christianity. 

Verse  3.  Jew.  For  what  if  some  [of  us]  did  not  have 
faith  lin  those  Messianic  oracles]?  will  their  unfaith  annul 
the  faith  I  faithfulness ]  of  God  [to  his  covenant  with  our 
fathers  ]? 

The  interrogative  what  not  merely  asks  a  question,  but  tells  the 
Jew's  impatient  dissent  from  the  apostle's  position,  and  challenges 
his  sincerity.  The  verse  expresses  the  Jew's  conceit  of  God's  ever- 
lasting covenant  with  them  as  Jews.  They  rightly  believe  that 
God  can  not  change ;  but  they  wrongly  fancied  that  his  promise  to 
the  fathers  and  to  the  elect  people  was  unconditional ;  and  that, 
no  matter  what  their  own  subsequent  attitude  or  conduct,  God 
was  inextricably  obligated  to  them,  and  to  them  exclusively.  But 
it  was  not  God's  sense  of  obligation  to  them,  but  his  much  long- 


116  EXPOSITION. 

suffering,  that  throujili  all  tliosi'  centuries  had  spared  these  Jewish 
vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto  perdition.     (Rom.  ix,  22.) 

The  Jews  held  the  Scriptures,  as  they  understood  them,  as 
sacred  as  did  Paul  himself.  They  were  even  more  rigid  than  he  in 
their  adherence  to  the  traditional  sense  of  the  sacred  oracles. 
The  apostle  does  not  charge  the  Jews  with  general  disbelief  of  the 
Scriptures;  nor  does  the  t)bjector  in  this  verse  confess  any  want 
of  faith  in  the  Scriptures  at  large,  but  only  unfaith  in  the  Christian 
interpretation  of  the  Messianic  oracles;  and  the  verb  did  not 
have  faith,  and  the  noun  unfaith,  must  be  taken  with  tiiis  limi- 
tation. It  was  with  this  recognition  of  the  Jews'  general  accept- 
ance of  the  Scriptures,  but  at  the  same  time  of  their  specific 
unbelief  in  Christ,  that  Jesus  said  to  them:  "Search  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  for  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me." 

Verse  4.  Paul.  God  forbid !  But  let  God  be  found  true, 
but  every  man  a  liar ;  as  it  has  been  written  : 

"That  thou  mayest  be  justified  in  thy  words, 
And  mayest  win  the  case  when  thou  art  judged." 

(Ps.  li,4.) 

The  words  God  forbid  express  Paul's  rejection  of  the  senti- 
ment of  the  Jew.  The  literal  translation  is,  Not  so  might  it  be- 
come! but  the  terse  English  phrase  "  God  forbid,"  while  not  verb- 
ally accurate,  best  expresses  the  sense.  The  phrase  is  found  ten 
times  in  this  Epistle,  and  four  times  elsewhere  in  Paul's  writings. 
The  introduction  of  the  word  God  in  the  English  phrase  is  not 
irreverent  or  flippant,  any  more  than  in  Paul's  repeated  assevera- 
tions, "God  knows,"  "God  is  my  witness."  In  this  verse,  the 
apostle  rejects  the  inferences  of  the  Jew  that  God  can  in  any  con- 
tingency, prove  faithless:  "Nay,  but  in  all  our  reasonings  and 
conclusions,  let  God  be  found  true  to  his  promises,  though  every 
man  of  you  I  every  Jew  who  does  not  have  faith  in  this  Messianic 
promise]  be  found  false." 

The  quotation  is  from  David's  penitential  psalm,  the  fifty-first. 
In  this  quotation,  we  have,  happily,  the  Greek  forensic  terms  for 
a  criminal  process,  and  for  a  civil  process,  at  law.  Tiie  first  verb, 
justified,  means  either  "shown  to  be  free  of  offense"  (which  is 
its  meaning  here,  spoken  of  God),  or  "  acquit  in  matters  of  which 
one  has  been  guilty"  (which  is  its  meaning  spoken  of  men,  in 
tlieological  coimections).     The  second  verb  means  to  "win  a  suit 


ROMANS  III,  5.  117 

at  law.  It  is  the  regular  term  in  Attic  Greek  for  sucli  a  verdict. 
The  connection  here  restricts  the  saying,  spoken  of  God,  to  a 
justification  or  vindication  of  God,  as  true  to  his  Messianic  prom- 
ises, the  "oracles,"  which  Paul  interprets  in  a  sense  denied  by  the 
Jews.  But  if,  in  this  contention  of  the  Jews  against  the  Gentiles, 
and  so  against  those  divine  oracles,  God  is  justified  and  vindi- 
cated,— if  God  is  found  true  to  the  oracles  with  tlieir  Christian 
interpretation, — if  God  is  clearly  for  the  Gentiles, — it  follows  that 
the  other  party,  the  Jews,  who  gainsay  this  interpi-etation,  and 
reject  the  equality  of  the  Gentiles  with  themselves,  must  be  them- 
selves held  as  "non-justified,"  as  "non-just,"  as  "unjust,"  as 
sinners,  and  amenable  to  God's  wrath. 

Paul  quotes  this  psalm  to  show  that  God  is  vindicated  in  his 
constancy  to  the  Messianic  promises,  against  the  assumption  of 
the  Jews.  But  to  most  readers,  it  has  an  additional  value.  In 
the  words  of  this  psalm,  all  human  consciousness  has  ever  em- 
bodied its  truest,  liveliest  confession  of  sin.  It  has  been  uttered 
afresh  in  more  closets,  with  more  passionate  sobs,  than  any  other 
human  cry.  No  man,  heart-broken  over  his  sin,  ever  exculpated 
himself  and  inculpated  God.  David's  confesssion  of  his  own  sin, 
is  to-day  the  confession  of  all  mankind:  "Against  thee  I  sinned, 
that  THOU  mayest  be  justified." 

Verse  5.  Jew  :  But  if  our  non -justification  establishes 
Qod's  plan  of  justification,  what  shall  we  say  [concerning 
him]  ?  Is  God  unjust? — who  brings  wrath  upon  us?  I  say 
it,  according  to  man. 

The  conjunction  if  (et)  here  used  and  the  indicative  mode  in  the 
verb  establishes,  are  concessive,  and  imply  that  the  Jew  grants 
the  apostle's  last  position,  that  the  Jew  is  not  justified,  and  is  sub- 
ject to  the  wrath  of  God.  But  he  grants  this  only  for  argument's 
sake,  only  to  refute  it  by  a  further,  extravagant,  insistence  that  God 
must  be  held  literally  to  his  covenant  with  the  Jews.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  verse  may  be  more  fully  expressed  by  a  paraphrase: 
"If,  in  this  contention,  the  alleged  non-justification  of  the  Jews 
serves,  after  all,  to  establish  God's  plan  of  justification  embracing 
the  Gentiles  and  excluding  the  Jews,  what  shall  we  Jews  say, 
then  concerning  the  equity  of  his  course?  Is  God  unjust?  AVill 
he,  in  order  to  bring  in  the  Gentiles,  displace  us  from  our  inde- 
feasible rights  ?    Will  he  be  false  to  his  covenant  with  the  Jews  ? 


118  EXPOSITION. 

and  bring  on  them  his  wratii  ?  and  punish  them  fur  what  redounds 
to  his  glory?"  Such  is  the  bold  sophistry  of  the  Jew;  but  as  if 
conscious  that  his  language  may  perhai)S  be  too  daring,  he  subjoins 
the  half-apologetic  (lualification :  I  speak  as  it  looks  to  one 
from  a  human  point  of  view;  tiuit  is,  Our  failure  to  accept  this 
new  Gospel  does  not  ticeui  to  mm  to  discharge  God  from  his  obli- 
gation to  the  original  covenant-people. 

Verse  6.  Paui,  :  God  forbid !  since  how  will  Qod  judge 
the  world? 

The  words  express  Paul's  indignant  denial  that  God  will  pi-ove 
unjust:  "Heaven  forbid!  God  unjust?"  The  supposition  is  pre- 
posterous;  since,  in  that  case,  how  will  Qod  judge  the 
world?  The  judge  of  all  the  earth  must  do  right.  The  matter 
stands  indeed  just  the  reverse  from  the  arrogant  claims  of  the 
Jews.  "To  bring  wrath  upon  them"  is  right;  to  exempt  them 
would  be  unjust;  and  ''God  is  not  nnjust." 

Verse  7.  Jew  :  But  if  the  trueness  of  God  [to  his  Messi- 
anic promises]  by  my  falseness  [thereto]  redounded  to  his 
glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  condemned  as  sinful? 

The  VFords  are  those  of  the  Jewish  caviller,  and  are  substan- 
tially a  reiteration  of  the  vicious  reasoning  in  the  fifth  verse.  We 
have  again  the  concessive  conjunction  if,  as  if  the  objector,  for 
argument's  sake,  formally  grants  the  apostolic  contention,  only  to 
deny  it,  however,  in  reality.  The  words  trueness,  spoken  of  God, 
and  falseness,  spoken  of  the  Jew,  look  back  to  Paul's  adjectives 
in  the  fourtli  verse,  and  used  in  tlie  same  specific  senses,  "  God  is 
true,  the  Jews  a.re  false" — though  we  must  recollect  that  the  Jew 
accepts  the  latter  word  as  his  own,  only  for  argument's  sake.  If 
God's  "trueness"  to  the  Messianic  promise  is  better  illustrated 
and  established  amid  our  "falseness"  (unfaith  in  the  claims  of 
Christ)  ;  if  his  plans  for  the  Gentiles  are  more  clearly  defined  and 
realized  by  our  defection, — why,  notwithstanding,  are  the  Jews 
also  [aho  as  well  as  the  Gi'ntilos]  condemned  as  sinful?  But 
this  is  a  line  of  argument  which  is  much  the  same  as  to  say  that, 
"  in  view  of  the  objective  good  result,  the  Jews  not  only  ought  not 
to  be  condemned  by  God  as  sinful,  but,  contrariwise,  ought  to  be 
accounted  by  him,  as  they  have  heretefore  accounted  themselves, 
true  and  justified." 


ROMANS  III.   cV,  9.  119 

Verse  8.  Paul:  And  [shall  "we  say  then],  as  we  are 
calumniated,  and  as  some  declare  that  we  say.  Let  us  do 
the  evil  things  that  the  good  things  may  come?— of  whom 
the  condemnation  is  just. 

This  verse  is  Paul's  rejoinder  to  the  Jew,  and  liis  scornful  re- 
jection of  the  Jew's  vicious  ethics  and  vicious  reasoning.  The 
word  fir]  is  not  the  negative  adverb,  "And  why  not  f"  as  the  Author- 
ized and  the  Revised  give  it;  (as  if  it  were  ov)  but  is  the  interroga- 
tive conjunction.  The  negative  sense  is  impossible,  whether  as  a 
matter  of  Greek  criticism,  or  from  tl\e  apostle's  argument.  Paul 
shows  the  Jew's  sophistry  by  running  tlie  principle  out  to  its  legit- 
imate, but  monstrous,  consequences  ;  in  substance  as  follows:  "And 
to  follow  out  your  line  of  juggling  morality  [it  is  a  pity  Paul  did 
not  have  the  apt  word  Jesuitical],  shall  we  say,  as  some  slan- 
derously affirm  that  we  say,  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come?" 
The  "Jesuitical"  ethics  of  "Evil  for  the  sake  of  God,"  need  but 
be  named  in  order  to  be  rejected  ;  and  the  condemnation  of  men 
who  so  teach  is  just.  The  references  in  the  pronouns  some,  we, 
whom,  are  not  immediately  clear.  But  we  may,  perhaps,  best 
take  the  pronoun  "  we''  to  mean  Christians  at  large ;  and  the  pro- 
noun ''some"  to  refer  to  Jewish  calumniators  of  the  brethren. 
Whether  there  was  any  particular  occasion  for  this  calumny,  we 
do  not  know  ;  but  it  was  at  all  times  an  easy  charge  for  maligners 
to  bring  against  the  Church ;  and  it  was  a  charge  that  could  not 
be  refuted.  The  only  answer  which  Paul  attempts  is  to  meet  the 
calumny  by  an  indignant  denial,  and  to  denounce  any  who  should 
sanction  such  ethics: — of  whom  the  condemnation  is  just. 
This  general  reference  of  the  relative  pronoun  is,  on  the  whole,  the 
best,  though  it  makes  a  good  construction,  both  grammatically 
and  logically,  to  carry  it  back  to  the  word  some,  the  calumniators. 

The  word  /SXaff^ij^e'",  literally,  to  "  blaspheme,"  here  translated 
we  are  calumniated  (or  slandered),  is  used  here  of  meri;  but 
in  the  New  Testament  it  is  generally  said  of  the  Divine  Being, 
or  of  divme  things.  It  has  this  latter  sense  altogether  in  later 
Christian  usage. 

Verse  9a.  Jew:  "What,  then?  Are  we  worse  [than  the 
Qentilesl  ? 

The  words  are,  again,  the  woi-ds  of  the  Jew;  and  mean,  liter- 
ally, Are  we  surpassed  by  the  Gentiles?  The  sense  of  the 
Greek  verb  is  in  great  dispute.     It  is  disputed  whether  the  verb 


120  EXPOSITION. 

is  in  the  middle  voice,  or  in  the  passive.  The  Authorized  assumes 
the  former:  I  Do  we  surpass  the  Gentiles?]  and  translates,  "Are  we 
better  th&n  they  ?"  the  Revised  assumes  the  latter,  and  translates, 
"Are  we  worse  tlian  they?"  With  the  former  translation,  the 
American  Committee,  and  most  of  the  commentaries  substantially 
agree  But  the  middle  voice  of  this  verb  is  rare,  and  is  perhaps 
not  found  at  all  in  the  sense  alleged  ;  and,  further,  if  we  accept 
this  old  translation,  we  shall  have  practically  only  a  repetition  of 
the  question  in  the  first  verse;  and  not  a  logical  advance  in  tin' 
argument  as  is  suggested  by  the  first  words  of  the  verse.  What, 
then?  The  passive  voice  (though  it  also  is  rare)  must  be  adopted 
iiere  ;  and  tlie  proper  translation  gives  us  the  appropriate  sense. 
Are  we  surpassed?   Are  we  worse  Imorallyj?" 

In  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter,  as  we  saw,  the  Jewish  ob- 
jector to  the  Pauline  view  asked,  "  What  is  the  superiority  of  the 
Jew?"  evidently  assuming  tliat  the  Jews  were  better  than  the 
Gentiles  racially,  if  not  personally  and  morally:  and  we  further 
saw  that  Paul,  while  he  freely  conceded  their  superiority  in  a 
very  important  sense,  yet  denied  it  in  the  sense  which  they  meant. 
He  recognized  that  they  had  a  priority  in  call,  and  a  relatively 
greater  institutional  opportunity,  but  no  racial  and  no  moral  supe- 
riority. It  is  to  this  phase  of  racial  and  personal  desert  tliat  the 
Jew  comes  back  in  the  ninth  verse.  But  he  changes  his  form  of 
attack,  and  approaches  the  question  in  issue  from  the  opposite 
standpoint.  He  will  entrap  the  apostle  by  apparently  yielding 
the  whole  matter  in  debate,  and  will  even  query  whether,  accord- 
ing to  the  apostle's  showing,  the  Gentiles  are  not  better  than  the 
Jews:  "Are  we  surpassed  by  the  Gentiles?  are  we  worse  than  they, 
either  in  our  racial  claim,  or  in  morals?"  But  the  question, 
though  adroitly  put,  does  not  embarrass  the  advocate  of  a  universal 
equality  among  men  ;  and  his  answer  is  peremptoi'y  and  conclusive. 

Verse  9^.  Paul:  Not  in  any  wise!  For  we  before  ac- 
cused both  Jews  and  Greeks,  that  they  are  all  under  sin. 

The  verb  accused  is  the  appropriate  forensic  term  for  im- 
peachment under  specific  charges.  In  this  sentence,  the  epexe- 
getic  clause,  that  they  are  all  under  sin  expresses  the  grava- 
men of  the  thing  charged.  The  phrase  under  sin  is  figurative, 
and  means  "brought  under  the  dominion  and  the  condemnation 
of  sin."  It  is  the  legal  figure  of  master  and  slave,  which  the 
apostle  adopts  and  develops  at  large  in  the  sixth  clm]»ter  (Rom.  vi, 
12-23).  and  expresses  the  same  relation  as  he  has  in  thought  in  the 


ROMANS  III.    10-18.  121 

Epistle  to  the  Galatians:  "  The  Scripture  shut  up  all  things  under 
sin,"— counted  all  the  world  as  legal  thralls  of  sin.  (Gal.  iii,  22.) 
To  the  question  of  the  Jew,  "Are  we  worse  than  the  Gen- 
tiles?" the  apostle  answers,  "No,  in  no  wise!  the  Jew  is  not 
tvorse  than  the  Gentile ;  just  as  I  have  shown  that  he  is  no  better. 
No ;  the  Jews  are  not  better.  They  have  an  objective  advantage 
over  the  Gentiles,  in  the  prior  possession  of  the  written  revelation 
of  God's  will;  but  they  have  no  subjective,  moral  superiority." 
And  as  this  last  point  is,  to  put  it  categorically,  the  point  substan- 
tially in  debate,  the  apostle  addresses  himself  to  the  further  con- 
sideration of  it,  by  quoting,  against  the  Jewish  claim  of  moral 
superiority,  a  series  of  passages  from  their  own  Scriptures,  which 
declare  the  total  depravity  of  the  Jews.  For,  notice,  that  all  these 
damnatory  passages  were  originally  spoken,  not  of  Gentiles,  but 
of  Jews.  Their  own  Scriptures  condemn  them  as  being  as  bad  as 
the  Gentiles. 

Verse  10.    According  as  it  has  been  written  :— 
"  There  is  not  a  just  man,  not  even  one, 

11  There  is  not  a  man  that  understands; 
There  is  not  a  man  that  seeks  out  God. 

12  They  all  turned  aside,  together  they  were  corrupted. 
There  is  not  a  man  that  does  good,  there  is  not  even 

one."     (Ps.  xiv,  1-3.) 

13  "An  opened  grave  is  their  throat; 

With  their  tongues  they  used  craft."— (Ps-  v,  9.) 

"Venom  of  asps  is  under  their  lips."— (Ps.  cxl.  3.) 

14  "Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness."— (Ps. 

x,7.) 

15  "Swift  are  their  feet  to  shed  blood. 

16  Destruction  and  wretchedness  are  in  their  ways; 

17  And  the  way  of  peace  they  know  not."— (Isa.  lix,  7,  8.) 

18  "  There  is  no  fear  ofGod  before  their  eyes."— (Ps.  xxxvi.l.) 

In  these  verses  the  apostle  gives  a  catena  of  six  distinct  quo- 
tations from  various  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  showing,  with 
cumulative  force,  the  moral  character  of  the  Jews.  The  passages 
are  cited  somewhat  promiscuously,  as  they  occurred  to  the 
apostle's  mind  ;  yet  we  may  perhaps  trace  a  slight  connection  of 
thought  in  the  order  of  the  citation.  The  first  quotation  (verses 
10-12)  declares  the  universal  sinfulness  of  the  race,  but  specifically 


Ui  EXPOSITION. 

of  the  Jew;  the  next  four  quotations  (verses  13-17)  declare  the 
overt  offenses  in  word  and  aet  of  which  men  are  guilty  ;  and  the 
last  quotation  (verse  18)  dechires  tlie  utter  perversity  of  their 
moral  character  and  life.  The  quotations  are  from  the  Greek 
Septuagint,  not  from  the  Hebrew.  They  were  doubtless  coirtmon- 
places,  and  tlie  apostle  evidently  trusted  to  his  memory,  and  did 
not  quote  with  verbal  accuracy ;  but  he  faithfully  gives  us  the 
substance  of  the  passages  quoted. 

A  comparison  of  these  several  passages  with  the  original 
Hebrew  is  instructive  upon  the  New  Testament  method  of  quota- 
tion ;  and  shows  how  little  thought  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament had  of  any  verbal  inspiration  m  the  Scriptures.  Their 
quotations  from  tlie  Old  Testament  were  usually  given  for  their 
substantial  sense,  germane  to  the  matter  in  hand  .  but  sometimes 
(with  a  people  to  whom  the  Bible  was  the  only  classic)  quotations 
were  made  by  them,  as  often  by  modern  literati,  because  of  their 
verbal  patness,  and  not  for  their  intrinsic  pertinence;  e.  g.,  Matt, 
ii,  15,  17,  23.  It  is  usually  not  difficult  to  discriminate.  In  the 
text  before  us  the  passages  are  quoted  as  germane  to  the  matter  in 
hand.  The  translation  above  is  from  Paul's  citations  from  the 
Greek  Septuagint. 

For  the  purpose  of  a  ready  compaiMson,  1  subjoin  the  following 
pretty  close  translation  from  the  Hebrew. 

Verse  10.     "There  is  no  one  doing  good. 

Jehovah  from  heaven  looked  upon  the  sons  of  men, 

11  To  see  whether  any  was  acting  w^isely,  seeking  God. 

12  Every  one  had  gone  aside ;  together  they  became  cor- 

rupt. 
There  was  no  one  doing  good  ;  there  was  not  even  one." 
—  (Ps.  xiv,  1-3.) 

13  "An  opened  grave  is  their  throat; 

Their  tongue  they  used  with  guile." — (Ps.  v,  9.) 

"The  poison  of  an  adder  is  under  their  lips. " — (Ps.  cxl,3.) 

14  "His  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  deceits." — (Ps.  x,  7.) 

15  "For  their  feet  run  to  evil; 

And  they  haste  to  shed  innocent  blood. 

16  "Wasting  and  destruction  are  in  their  paths. 

17  The  way  of  peace  they  know  not." — (Isa.  lix,  7,  8.) 

18  "There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  his  eyes."— (Ps.  xxxvi,  1.) 


ROMANS  III.    10-18.  123 

It  will  be  noticed  that  some  of  the  verses  (10, 14, 18)  are  in  the 
singular  number ;  the  others  are  in  the  plural,  quite  promiscuously. 
Paul  begins  these  citations  with  the  words.  According'  as  it  has 
been  written.  This  is  the  constant  formula  for  (|uotations  from 
tiie  canonical  Scriptures.  Jesus  and  the  apostles  appealed  to  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  as  authoritative  and  decisive  on 
any  point  on  which  these  Scriptures  affirmed. 

The  description  in  the  Hebrew  of  verses  10-12  is  very  dramatic. 
Tlie  psalmist  represents  God  as  looking  down  from  heaven  to  see 
whether  there  were  any  righteous  men.  His  eyes  run  to  and  fro, 
through  the  earth, — in  vain!  "Behold,  every  man  has  gone 
astray  !  " 

The  language  of  verse  13,  An  opened  grave  is  their  throat, 
is  figurative,  and  expressive;  the  throat  of  the  treacherous  is  like 
an  open  grave,  yawning  to  swallow  the  unwary.  The  figure  is  the 
same  as  the  Savior's:  "Woe  to  you,  hypocrites,  ye  are  as  the 
graves  which  the  men  that  walk  over  them  know  not ;" — and  sud- 
denly stumble  into  them.     (Luke  xi,  44.) 

The  language  of  verse  16,  Destruction  and  misery  are  in 
their  way,  describes  the  desolation  and  wretchedness  which  a 
hostile  army,  marching  through  a  flourishing  country,  leaves 
behind  them  "  in  their  track.."  Before  tliem  the  country  is  as  the 
garden  of  God  ;  beliind  them  is  a  howling  wilderness  !  "  The  reign 
of  peace  between  man  and  man,  they  know  nothing  of." 

It  is  evident,  from  the  tenor  of  these  quotations,  that  the 
apostle  teaches  that  the  outward  difference  between  the  uncircum- 
cised  Gentile  and  the  circumcised  Jew  marks  no  moral  difference 
between  them.  Any  moral  distinction,  if  found  at  all,  must  be 
found  within,  in  the  heart ;  not  without,  in  their  institutions.  But 
there  is  no  such  inward  distinction  ;  all  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles 
alike,  are  guilty  before  God,  and  are  equally  guilty  ;  and  all  men 
need  justification  from  sin,  and  need  it  equally. 

There  is  some  uncertainty  as  to  the  proper  ending  of  Paul's 
speech,  begun  in  the  ninth  verse.  The  doubt  is  exactly  the  same 
as  meets  us  elsewhere  in  the  Scriptures;  for  example,  in  Gal. 
ii,  14,  and  the  following  verses,  whei'e  does  Paul's  formal  answer 
to  Peter  end  ?  and  where  does  he  resume  his  direct  discourse  to 
to  the  Galatians?  Again,  in  Christ's  words  to  Nicodemus,  in  John 
iii,  10,  and  the  following  verses,  we  have  an  uncertainty  of  the  same 
kind.  Where  does  Christ's  pi'oper  answer  end?  and  where  does 
the  evangelist  resume  his  narrative?     Perhaps  in  the  chapter  be- 


124  EXPOSITION. 

fore  us  it  is  best  to  understaiid  that  Pmil's  rejoinder  runs  from 
the  ninth  verse  to  the  end  of  the  twenty-sixth  verse ;  though  after 
the  twentieth  less  personal  than  before,  but  with  equal  conclusive- 
ness on  the  matter  of  debate.  In  the  twenty-seventh  verse  the 
Jew's  direct  questions  are  resumed  for  a  moment;  and  then  Paul's 
final  rejoinder  goes  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

This  common  guilt  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  common  need  of 
justification,  constitutes  the  subject  of  the  remaining  part  of  this 
chapter.  The  line  of  thouglit  here  followed  establishes  certain 
points  which  are  fundamental  to  the  subsequent  discussion.  These 
points  are  as  follows : 

1.  All  the  -world,  Jew  and  Gentile,  is  guilty  before 
God.     (Verse  19.) 

2.  By  works  of  law  no  man,  not  even  the  Jew, 
is  justified  before  God.     (Verse  20.) 

3.  There  must  be  another  way  of  justification, 
aside  from  law.  Yes  :  apart  from  law.  God's 
plan  of  justification,  which  has  hitherto  been 
hidden,  has  now  been  made  known,  and  comes 
to  us  attested  of  old  in  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets.     (Verse  21.) 

4.  This  plan  of  justification  is  through  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ.     (Verse  22.) 

5.  This  justification  is  open  to  all  men,  Gentile 
and  Jew,  indiscriminately ;  for  there  is  no 
distinction.     (Verse  22.) 

6.  For  God  is  God  of  Gentiles,  as  well  as  of 
Jews  (Verse  29)  ;  And  he  will  justify  the  Cir- 
cumcision and  the  Uncircumcision,  equally,  by 
faith.     (Verse  30.) 

7.  And  this  mode  of  justification  is  not  in  any 
sense  antagonistic  to  the  Law  :  but  it  is  the, 
of  old,  "intended"  end,  and  fulfillment  of  law. 
(Verse  31.) 

Verse  19.  But  we  know  that  w^hatsoever  things  the 
Law  says,  it  speaks  to  the  men  within  the  Law^ ;  in  order 
that  every  mouth  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may 
become  amenable  to  God. 

In  the  first  clause,  the  word  we  is  spoken  in  the  person  of  all 
concerned   in  such   matters ;   the  thing  declared   is  a  matter  of 


ROMANS  III,  JO.  125 

universal  understanding.  The  description  of  human  depravity  in 
the  quotations  from  the  Scriptures,  Paul  here  applies  specifically 
to  the  Jews.  What  the  Law  says,  it  speaks  not  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, but  expressly  to  the  men  under  the  Law ;  that  is,  to  the 
Jews,  within  tlie  pale  of  the  Law.  This  description  of  human 
depravity,  as  exemplified  in  the  Jews,  was  true  to  the  facts  in  all 
their  history.  In  less  than  a  score  of  years  after  this  writing, 
these  very  Jews  who  arrogated  to  themselves  the  special  approval 
of  God  as  his  elect  people,  in  the  very  crisis  of  the  fate  of  their 
nation  and  of  their  religion,  forebore  no  enormity  of  crime,  of 
outrage,  of  nameless  vileness.  Upon  the  very  eve  of  this  great 
catastrophe,  the  Apocalypse  calls  "the  Holy  City"  "Sodom  and 
Egypt."  (Rev.  xi,  8.)  And  after  their  calamity,  one  of  their 
own  priests  and  historians  says  with  regard  to  his  people:  "  Never, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  did  any  age  ever  breed  a  gener- 
ation more  fruitful  in  wickedness  than  was  this."  (Josephus, 
Wars,  V,  X,  5.) 

Undoubtedly  Paul's  arraignment  of  the  corruption  of  the  race, 
in  the  first  chapter  (verses  18-32),  holds  especially  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. But  the  Jews  can  not  transfer  to  the  Gentiles  the  equally 
dark  arraignment  in  the  passages  here  quoted.  As  descriptive  of 
fallen  human  nature,  these  passages  attach  indeed  to  the  Gentiles  ; 
but  they  attach  first  of  all  to  the  Jews,  that  every  mouth 
(even  of  the  Jews)  may  be  stopped,  and  all  the  world  may 
become  guilty  before  God. 

Verse  20.  Because  from  works  of  law  will  no  flesh  be 
justified  before  him ;  for  through  law^  comes  recognition 
of  sin. 

Law  is  here,  as  always  when  without  the  article,  the  eternal, 
universal,  moral  law,  written  in  the  conscience  of  all  men  alike. 
The  proposition  of  the  text  is  universal.  The  statement  applies  to 
the  Jews  as  well  as  to  the  Gentiles.  By  works  of  law  are  meant 
works  done  in  obedience  to  law,  as  constituting  a  meritorious 
ground  of  justification  and  reward :  "  Which  things  if  a  man  do,  he 
will  have  [eternal]  life  in  doing  them"  (Lev.  xviii,5;  Gal.  iii, 
12)  ;  while  failure  to  do  them  constitutes  a  ground  of  condemna- 
tion: "For  it  has  been  written.  Cursed  is  every  one  that  continues 
not  in  all  the  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  Law,  to  do  them" 
(Deut.  xxvii,  26;  Gal.  iii,  10). 

The  words  will  be  justified  are  used  here,  as  always,  forensic- 


126  EXmsiTIOX. 

ally;  and  mean,  "will  be  accountiHl  just;"  or  "be  held  ac(iuit." 
The  tense  of  the  verb  may  denote  the  time  when  each  man  .shall 
come  to  a  consciousness  of  his  guilt;  but  more  probably  points  to 
the  general  judgment  of  the  Last  Day,  as  is  shown  by  the  final 
phrase  before  Him, — before  his  V>ar.  "Justification  from  works 
of  law"  is,  undoubtedly,  God's  normal  method  for  the  universe. 
It  is  so  planned  for  all  moral  agents.  Angels  and  men,  if  they  are 
upright,  stand  in  the  sight  of  God  approved,  "justified  from  works 
of  law,"  the  law  of  right.  So  angels  in  heaven,  who  do  God's  will, 
stand  justified  by  their  works,  and  need  no  redeemer  fi-om  sin,  no 
expiation  for  violated  law.  So  Satan  and  liis  followers  stood,  for 
what  time  we  know  not,  until  their  fall  by  sin.  So  Adam  stood, 
for  his  brief  day  of  innocence,  until  his  fall  by  sin.  So  the  Second 
and  Greater  Adam  stood,  without  fall ;  he  did  the  works  of  law, 
and  could  justly  say  to  his  enemies,  "  Which  of  you  convicteth  me 
of  sin?"  And  he  was  "justified,"  accounted  blameless,  thereby. 
(1  Tim.  iii,  16.)  Such  was  God's  ideal  plan  for  the  justification  of 
man.  But  the  concept  of  law  requires  "continuance  in  all  the 
things  written  therein;"  and,  failing  this,  "from  works  of  law  no 
flesh  will  be  justified." 

The  statement  that  through  law  is  recognition  of  sin  is 
spoken  from  the  standpoint  of  human  ext)erience.  The  normal 
oflfice  of  law  is  to  justify  men  (but  unfallen  men,  only),  and  thus 
to  bring  salvation.  To  fallen  men  it  brings  condemnation ;  and 
from  this  point  of  view,  the  apostle  here  affirms,  what  all  human 
experience  confirms,  that  it  reveals  sin,  and  brings  home  to  the 
conciousness  a  sense  of  guilt.  "To  wliat  end  is  the  Law  ?  It  was 
added  for  the  sake  of  bringing  transgressions  into  clearer  light" 
(Gal.  iii,  19);  "I  did  not  know  sin,  except  through  law" 
(Rom.  vii,  7). 

Men  are  sinful,  and  need  acquittal.  The  question  then  ever 
recurs,  "  How  shall  man  be  justified  with  God  ?"  (Job  ix,  2.)  It 
is  for  the  alarmed  conscience  the  question  of  questions ;  the  one 
demand  of  all  religions.  Two  modes  of  justification  are  recognized 
and  described  in  the  Bible,  and  two  only:  the  justification  fi'om 
works,  and  the  justification  from  faith  m  tlie  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
The  first  is  obtainable  by  rarnimj  it;  the  other  as  a  gratuity.  The 
apostle  says:  "To  him  that  works,  the  reward  [justification,  that 
is,  a  verdict  of  'guiltlessness,'  and  consequent  salvation]  is  not 
reckoned  as  a  gratuity,  but  as  a  debt  due  to  him  ;  but  to  him  that 
works  not  [that  is,  does  not  rely  on  works  of  law  for  justification]. 


ROMANS  III,  n.  127 

but  exercises  faith  on  him  who  justifies  the  sinner,  his  faith  is 
reckoned  unto  justification  [that  is,  acquittal  from  guilt]."  (Rom. 
iv,  4.)  Both  modes  are  conceivable,  both  possible.  First:  As  a 
mere  abstract  proposition,  a  man  might  now  be  justified  by  his 
works.  Moses  said  :  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments, 
which  if  a  man  do,  he  will  have  life  in  them."  (Lev.  xviii,  5.) 
And  to  the  lawyer  who  asked,  "  Teacher,  what  shall  I  do,  to  inherit 
eternal  life?"  Christ  answered,  "What  is  writen  in  the  law?  this 
do;  and  thou  wilt  have  life."     (Luke  x,  25.) 

Such  was  the  hope  and  the  boast  of  the  Jews.  They  were  the 
elect  people  ;  they  had  the  oracles  of  God  ;  and  they  were  jealous 
for  his  sovereignty ;  but  everything  was  overshadowed  by  their 
boundless  self-conceit.  "They  ignored  God's  plan  of  justification 
from  faith,  and  sought  to  establish  a  justification  of  their  own  from 
works."  (Rom.  x,  3.)  "They  tithed  the  mint,  the  dill  and  the 
cummin  [things  ethically  lighter  than  the  dust  of  the  balance], 
but  they  omitted  the  weightier  matters  of  the  Law,  judgment,  and 
mercy,  and  faith."  (Matt,  xxiii,  23.)  They  trusted  to  their  scru- 
pulous obsei'vance  of  the  law  of  rites,  for  favor  with  God,  and 
fancied  that  their  "  election "  made  up  for  all  defects  in  their 
obedience  to  the  inner  spiritual  law. 

Such,  too,  is  the  fundamental  and  fatal  error  that  pervades  all 
the  ethnic  religions.  Said  Sir  Monier  Williams,  professor  of  San- 
skrit in  Oxford  University  (died,  1899),  in  an  address  before  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  in  1887:  "  I  have  devoted  forty- 
two  years  of  my  life,  as  much  as  any  man  living,  to  the  study  of 
the  books  held  sacred  by  the  nations  of  the  East ;  and  I  have  found 
the  one  key-note  running  tlirough  them  all  is  salvation  by  works. 
They  are  certain  that  salvation  must  be  purchased ;  and  that  the 
sole  purchase  money  must  be  one's  works  and  deservings." 

Verse  21.  But  now,  apart  from  law,  God's  plan  of  justi- 
fication has  been  manifested,  being  attested  by  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets ;  but  God's  plan  of  justification  through  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  unto  all  them  that  have  faith ;  for  there  is 
no  distinction. 

Here  we  have  the  Second:  The  only  other  method  of  justifica- 
tion through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  method  set  forth  in 
the  gospel.  There  is  no  union  or  intermingling  of  the  two  schemes 
for  justification.  The  scheme  of  faith  is  independent  of  works. 
"  By  grace  ye  have  been  saved,  through  faith, — not  from  works." 


128  EXPOSITION. 

(Eph.  ii,  8.)  That  is,  this  method  of  justitieation  excludes  reliance 
on  works  (yet  not  in  any  antinomian  sense,  for  it  nqiiires  works  as  an 
evidence  of  one's  profession)  ;  and  it  bases  man's  sole  hope  of  sal- 
vation upon  the  vicarious  atonement  of  Christ.  "  Christ  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  Law,  having  become  a  curse  [accursed]  in 
our  stead."     (Gal.  iii.  13.) 

This  scheme  of  justification,  by  grace  (gratis),  through  faith, 
is  not  new  in  God's  provisions  for  human  salvation;  but  is  the 
primal,  eternal  plan  now,  at  the  end  of  the  ages,  manifested  to  the 
world.  Paul  elsewhere  says:  "This  grace  was  given  us  in  Christ 
Jesus  before  eternal  ages,  but  has  been  manifested  now  through 
the  appearing  of  our  Savior,  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Tim.  i,  10.)  Only 
that  which  previously  existed,  though  hidden,  can  be  "manifested." 
"In  former  generations  it  was  not  made  known  to  the  sons  of 
men,  as  it  was  now  revealed  to  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets  in 
the  Spirit,  that  the  Gentiles  are  coheirs  with  the  Jews,  and  joined 
in  the  same  body  with  them,  and  partakers  with  them  of  the 
promise  in  Christ,  through  the  gospel."  (Eph.  iii,  4.)  This  unre- 
vealed  secret  was  the  "  mystery"  of  which  Paul  so  often  speaks, 
not  (as  in  the  sense  of  the  English  word  mystery)  something  incom- 
prehensible and  inexplicable,  but  merely  the  higher  and  distinctive 
doctrine  of  the  gospel,  the  gospel  that  is  world-wide  in  its  scope, 
that  contemplates,  not  the  Jews  only,  but  the  Gentiles  also,  all  of 
them,  and  equally.  This  was  God's  plan  from  eternity.  He  was 
always  working  along  this  line.  It  was  a  truth  attested  by  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  The  Scriptures,  though  the  Jews  cer- 
tainly misapprehended  them,  were  nevertheless  saturated  with 
this  thought.  "The  testimony  concerning  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of 
prophecy"  (Rev.  xix,  10);  "To  him  all  the  prophets  testify," 
(Acts  X,  43)  ;  "And  all  the  prophets  from  Samuel,  as  many  as 
spoke,  foretold  these  days"  (Acts  iii,  24).  Christ  himself  said 
of  these  Jewish  Scriptures,  "These  are  the  Scriptures  testifying 
concerning  me."  (John  v,  39.)  In  his  evening  walk,  with  the  two 
disciples,  on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  "  Beginning  from  Moses  and  from 
all  the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  Scriptures,  the 
things  concerning  himself."  (Luke  xxiv,  27.)  Such  is  the  evan- 
gelical drift  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  voice  of  gospel  teach- 
ing is  heard  throughout  the  volume.  And  at  the  end  of  this  epistle, 
the  apostle  declares  that  "this  mystery  [innerdoctrine],  kept  secret 
through  eternal  ages,  is  now  made  manifest,  and,  through  pro- 
phetic Scriptures  [which  we  now  know  to  interpret  correctly],  is 


nOMANS  III.    23,  24.  129 

made  known  to  all  the  Gentiles,  with  a  view  to  their  obedience  to 
the  faith."     (Rom.  xvi,  25.) 

Faith  in  Christ,  whose  name  now  first  appears  in  this  argu- 
ment, is  the  only  means  by  which  men  may  be  at  one  with  God. 
The  ideal,  normal  justification  by  "  doing  works  of  law,"  being 
now  impossible  for  men,  the  only  alternative  is  faith  in  Christ's 
atonement.  "There  is  no  other  name  given  among  men  whereby 
we  must  be  saved."  (Acts  iv,  12.)  The  prepositional  phrase  unto 
all,  connects  back  to  the  word  justification.  In  some  editions, 
and  in  the  Authorized,  is  found  a  second  phrase  "  and  upon  all ;" 
which,  however,  adds  but  little  to  the  sense,  only  to  the  rhetorical 
fullness  of  the  sentence,  as  habitual  with  Paul.  But  if  we  retain 
the  clause,  we  may  explain  the  meaning,  "  justification  reaching 
unto  all,  and  resting  upon  all." 

The  single  condition  for  actual,  experimental,  personal  justi- 
cation  before  God,  is  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  a  con- 
dition that  is  graciously  open  to  all  men,  and  possible  for  all  men. 

The  clause  for  there  is  no  distinction,  is  epexegetical  of  the 
word  all  in  the  previous  clause.  We  may  safely  emphasize  this 
word  "all"  whenever  we  find  it  in  Paul's  exhibition  of  the  gos- 
pel plan.  It  is  emphatic  here:  "In  Christ  there  is  justification 
unto  ALL  men, /or  there  is  no  difference."  The  sense  is  plain  with- 
out any  further  words ;  but  elsewhere  Paul  gives  the  thought  yet 
more  explicitly:  "For  there  is  no  difference  between  Jew  and 
Greek  [Gentile.]"  (Rom.  x,  12.)  All  races,  and  all  classes,  and 
all  individuals,  stand  before  God,  before  the  Law,  before  the  Gos- 
pel on  the  same  gracious  footing.  Any  individual  distinctions  of 
blood,  or  conditions,  are  in  the  line  of  God's  providences,  not  of 
his  spiritual  kingdom  ;  and  distinctions  of  rank  among  men  are  of 
men's  own  making,  whicli  God  does  not  recognize  ;  with  him  there 
is  no  respect  of  persons  (social  conditions)  ;  and  the  provisions  of 
the  gospel  are  adequate  to  all  conditions  and  emergencies. 

Verses  23,  24.  For  all  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,  being  justified  gratis  by  his  grace,  through 
the  redemption  that  is  fn  Christ  Jesus. 

The  statement  that  all  sinned  looks  back  to  the  great  historic 
fact  of  the  fall  of  man,  which  is  all  that  we  here  deal  with ;  but 
we  shall  have  occasion,  on  the  recurrence  of  these  words  in  the 
fifth  chapter  (Rom.  v,  12),  to  discuss  the  theology  and  the  theodicy 
of  the  doctrine  of^sin  and  of  redemption.     It  is  this  objective  fact 


i;50  EXPOSITION. 

of  universal  sinfuliu'ss  tluit  the  apostle  makes  the  ground  for  the 
universal  counter-provision  of  the  gospel. 

To  this  statement  of  the  historic  fact  that  "  all  sinned,"  in- 
cluding the  Jews  as  well  as  the  Gentiles  in  this  condemnation,  the 
ajjostle  now  adds  the  present  fact  that  all  men,  including  again  the 
Jews,  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God.  The  sense  of  the  final 
phrase,  the  glory  of  God,  is  not  immediately  apparent.  Some 
tiiink  tluit  the  clause  means  this:  "They  come  short  of  rendering 
to  God  the  glory  tiuit  is  due  to  him,"  as  in  the  sentence,  "  To  God 
only  wise  be  glory  through  Jesus  Christ,  forever."  (Rom.  xvi,  17.) 
Others  think  that  it  means:  "They  fall  short  of  attaining  the 
consummate  glory  of  the  last  day,"  "  the  glory  that  will  be  re- 
vealed to  us-ward."  (Rom.  viii.  18.)  But  "  the  glory  "  of  our  text 
is  not  future,  but  present.  Better  is  the  sense  of  the  word  in 
John:  "They  loved  the  glory  of  men  rather  than  the  glory  of 
God."  (John  xii,  43.)  Interpret  the  passage  thus:  "They  lack 
the  approval  of  God."  This  is  the  characteristic  result  of  the  sinful 
state  of  men,  at  large;  but  the  connection  in  the  apostle's  line  of 
thought  siiows  that  he  applies  it  here  to  the  Jews.  They  put  for- 
ward arrogant  claims;  but,  in  fact,  "they  do  not  stand  approved 
of  God."  He  does  not  look  with  complacency  on  them  and  justify 
them  on  the  ground  of  law.  Nay,  as  lacking  justification  on  the 
ground  of  works,  they  (and  all  men  in  common)  are  justified — the 
only  alternative— gratis,  by  God's  grace,  through  the  re- 
demption of  Christ. 

"Justified  (jratis!"  This  under  the  gospel  scheme  is  the  only 
result,  and  is  the  universal  result.  "All  I  Jew  and  Gentile] 
sinned  ;"  the  same  all  (Jew  and  Gentile)  are  justified  by  grace,  as 
a  f/ift  from  God,  and  not  by  works.  The  word  "being  justified  " 
(diKaLovfitvoi,  in  the  nominative  case)  can  not  look  back  grammatic- 
ally to  the  word  all  in  the  twenty-second  verse  (Trdfras,  in  the  ac- 
cusative case),  "all  that  have  faith;"  but  to  the  word  all  in  the 
twenty-third  verse  (irdvres,  nominative  case),  "all  sinned."  The 
normal  Scriptural  view  is  that  "all  who  sinned,"  bemg  subjects 
of  redemi)tion,  are  constructively  "justified."  And  notice:  that 
the  language  expressly  takes  in  t]ie  Jews.  Tlie  terms  are  coexten- 
sive: "Sinned — justified."  This  is  the  gosjiel  plan.  Such  is  al- 
ways Paul's  concei)t  of  the  matter;  sucli  are  iiis  words  whenever 
he  exhibits  the  plan  and  process  of  redemption:  "  If  one  died  for 
[in  the  place  of]  all,  then  they  all  died,  witii  liim  "  (2  Cor.  v,  14)  ; 
"  He  that  died  with  Christ  has  been  justified  from  sin  "  (Rom. 


ROMANS  III.    25,  26.  131 

vi,  7) ;  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  will  all  be  made  to 
live"  (1  Cor.  xv,  22).  But  notice,  further,  that  the  universality 
•of  redemption  and  of  constructive  justification  for  the  race,  which 
is  wholly  a  matter  of  God's  grace,  and  not  of  man's  will,  does  not 
involve  universality  of  eternal  salvation,  which,  under  the  gospel 
plan,  is  practically  conditional,  in  the  case  of  adults,  upon  each 
man's  personal  faith.  The  word  grace  has  here  its  first,  simple 
meaning  of  God's  favor  or  kindness;  and  not  the  secondary  sense 
of  infused,  spiritual  IicIjk 

The  word  redemption  is  one  of  the  most  significant  terms  in 
the  gospel  vocabulary.  The  word  means  a  pi-ice  paid,  a  liberation 
from  a  previous  bondage.  The  word  occurs  ten  times  in  the  New 
Testament ;  the  concept  which  it  expresses  occurs  many  times 
more.  These  passages  represent  man  in  bondage  to  iniquity,  in 
bondage  to  death,  the  wages  of  iniquity.  The  ransom  is  Christ's 
own  life.  "  Christ  gave  himself  in  our  place,  that  he  may  redeem 
us  from  all  iniquity  "  (Tit.  ii,  14)  ;  "  Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom 
in  place  of  all  "  (1  Tim.  ii,  6)  ;  "  Christ  bought  us  off  from  the 
curse  of  the  law  "  (Gal.  iii,  13)  ;  "  Christ  gave  himself  in  our  place, 
an  offering,  and  a  sacrifice  to  God"  (Eph.  v,  2).  These  last  words, 
"  to  God,"  are  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  dreadful  notion  of  some 
of  the  fathers,  and  some  modei'n  writers,  that  the  price  of  Christ's 
death  was  paid  to  the  devil !  No ;  it  is  God  who  is  propitiated  by 
Christ's  death.  As  a  Father  of  men,  he  gave  his  Son  to  die  for 
them:  and  as  a  Sovereign  he  accepted  Christ's  death  as  a  satisfac- 
tion for  the  sins  of  men.  These  two  relations  to  men  are  not 
incompatible.  "  In  Christ  we  have  the  redemption,  through  his 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  God's 
grace."     (Eph.  i,  7.) 

Verses  25,  26.  Whom  God  set  forth  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  unto  a  manifestation  of  his  plan 
of  justification,  on  account  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins 
done  before  in  the  forbearance  of  God ;  unto  the  mani- 
festation of  his  plan  of  justification  in  the  present  time ; 
to  the  end  that  he  may  himself  be  just  [justified],  and 
justifying  him  that  is  of  faith  in  Jesus. 

These  verses  are  felt  to  be  peculiarly  difficult.  They  are 
compact,  implicate  in  structure,  full  of  weighty  and  significant 
words,  and  some  of  them  very  perplexing.  The  sevex-al  words, 
and  phrases,  and  clauses,  and  the  connections  of  the  sentences, 


132  EXPOSITION. 

grammatical  and  logical,  need  careful  study.  Tho  translation  here 
given,  and  the  exegesis  following,  while  doubtless  open  to  criticism, 
will,  I  hope,  be  found  free  from  serious  misconception  or  misrep- 
resentation of  tlie  apostle's  meaning. 

The  first  verse  begins  vvitli  an  liistoricnl  statement  that  God 
set  forth  his  son  as  a  propitiation.  Dependent  upon  this  sen- 
tence, there  are  two  co-ordinate  parallel  clauses,  expressing  the 
scope,  or  object,  aimed  at  in  the  divine  action  ;  and  these  clauses  are 
each  motlified  by  adverbial  phrases,  causal  or  temporal ;  and  finally 
there  is  a  telic  clause,  expressing  the  divine  purpose.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  analysis,  I  arrange  the  entire  passage  thus: 

"  Whom  God  set  forth  a  propitiation,  through  faith  in  his 
blood: 

I.  AVith  a  view  to  a  manifestation  of  his  plan  of  justification, 
on  account  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  of  old  in  the  for- 
bearance of  God  ; 

II.  Unto  the  manifestation  of  his  plan  of  justification  in  the 
present  time ; 

III.  To  the  end  that  he  may  himself  be  justified,  and  justify- 
ing him  that  is  of  faith  in  Jesus." 

The  verb  here  translated  set  forth  does  not  so  much  mean 
proclaimed,  announced  (yet  this,  too,  is  true),  as  put  forward,  con- 
stituted. God  constituted  his  Son  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
world.  "He  seiit  his  son  a  propitiation  for  our  sins."  (1  John 
iv,  10.)  This  appointment  dates  back  to  the  eternal  counsels  of 
God,  who  counted  his  Son  "a  lamb  slain,  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world."  (Rev.  xiii,  8.)  The  first  proclamation  of  this  Savior 
was  in  the  promise  in  the  garden:  "The  seed  of  the  woman  will 
bruise  the  serpent's  head;"  and  successive  proclamations  of  this 
appointment  run  through  all  the  later  revelation.  "He  promised 
itof  old  through  his  prophets,  in  Holy  Scriptures."  (Rom.i,2.)  Yet 
the  world  waited  long  for  liim  who  was  the  Desire  of  all  nations. 
"But  in  the  fullness  of  the  time,  God  sent  forth  his  Son."  (Gal. 
iv,  4.)  "Now  once  for  all,  at  the  completion  of  the  ages,  he  has 
been  manifested  to  a  putting  away  of  sin,  through  the  sacrifice  of 
himself."  (Heb.  ix,  26.)  These  sayings,  which  describe  the  great 
fulfillment  of  the  promise  of  old,  explain  the  words  of  our  text: 
"  Whom  God  set  forth,  or  constituted,  a  propitiation." 

The  Greek  word  here  translated  propitiation,  found  twice 
only  in  the  New  Testament,  occurs  many  times  in  the  Septuagint 
in  the  sense  of  "  mercy  seat."    It  is  found  also  in  the  Epistle  to 


ROMANS  III.    25,  36.  133 

the  Hebrews  in  this  Levitical  sense :  "Above  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant were  the  Cherubim  overshadowing  the  mercy  seat."  (Heb. 
ix,  5.)  Many  interpreters  attach  this  meaning,  figuratively,  to 
the  text  here.  But  this  interpretation  is  too  strained  to  satisfy 
the  exigencies  of  the  passage.  We  can  hardly  say  that  God  con- 
stituted his  Son  a  mercy  seat,  an  inanimate  altar.  Rather,  the 
Son  was  the  living,  willing  victim  upon  the  altar,  a  self-sacrifice  to 
expiate  the  sins  of  the  world.  It  is  in  this  latter  sense  that  the 
verbtXdo-Keo-^ai,  to  propitiate,  also  twice  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  used:  "God,  be  propitiated  to  me  the  sinner"  (Luke  xviii,  13) ; 
"He  became  high  priest  ...  to  make  propitiation  for  the  sins  of 
the  people"  (Heb.  ii,  17).  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  other  deriv- 
ative substantive  iXa<r/ii6s,  also  twice  found,  is  used:  "  He  is  a  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins"  (1  John  ii,  2)  ;  "He  sent  his  Son  a  propitia- 
tion for  our  sins  "  (1  John  iv,  10).  These  words  then  have  a  sense 
of  atonement,  a  means  to  placate,  to  concilitate ;  and  they  always 
are  used  of  the  change  in  man's  forensic  relations  towards  God. 
So  here :  "  God  appointed  his  Son  propitiation  for  our  sins."  "God 
was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  to  himself,  not  imputing  to 
them  their  trespasses."     (2  Cor.  v,  19.) 

The  phrase  through  faith  in  his  blood  is  appropriately  con- 
nected with  the  word  ''propitiation."  No  one  can  fairly  misun- 
derstand the  general  thought.  But  as  the  act  of  propitiation  rep- 
resents the  Godward  side  of  the  transaction,  and  the  act  of  faith 
the  manward  side,  we  may,  for  definition's  sake,  best  express  the 
connection  by  supplying  a  word:  "  propitiation  to  be  apprehended 
by  us  through  faith." 

This  phrase,  "  through  faith  in  his  blood,"  is  to  be  taken  as  a 
whole,  without  a  comma  after  "  faith  ;"  that  is,  the  preposition  in 
shows  the  relation  of  "blood"  to  "faith."  (The  Authorized  is 
correct;  the  Revised  has  missed  the  sense.)  But  by  the  word 
"  propiliation,"  the  apostle  brings  to  the  front  in  this  sense,  not 
simply  faith,  but  expressly  ''faith  in  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ." 
True,  this  verbal  expression  of  faith  in  Christ's  blood  does  not  occur 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  the  book  is  rich  in  equiva- 
lent expressions  teaching  the  propitiation  through  his  shed  blood. 
The  Savior  himself  said,  "  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood, 
which  is  shed  for  you"  (Luke  xxii,  20)  ;  Paul  said,  "  In  him  we 
have  the  redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  " 
(Eph.  i,  7)  ;  and  John  said,  "  He  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood"  (Rev.  i,  5).     Yet  the  term  "blood"  is  but 


134  EXPOSITION. 

a  fipurativp  expression  for  death  ;  "  For  tliough  it  behooved  Christ 
tu  dii"  (wliicli  was  the  essential  thing),  the /t»/-»i  of  his  death  was 
a  matter  indilTerent  in  itself;  and  .nothing  turns  on  the  mere  phys- 
ical tilicd'linij  of  his  blood.  But  as  Christ's  death  came  in  this  form, 
and  as  his  blood  was  actually  shed,  the  word  "  blood"  most  natu- 
rally and  most  expressively  runs  through  all  the  New  Testament 
representations  of  his  death  ;  and  the  "  blood  [death]  of  Christ  "  is 
constantly  named  as  the  redemption  of  the  world. 

The  phrase  unto  a  manifestation  of  his  plan  of  justifica- 
tion expresses  God's  purpose  in  thus  formally  setting  forth  his 
Son  as  the  propitiation  of  the  world.  It  was  to  vindicate  himself 
and  his  administration.  The  term  evdei^is  here  translated  "mani- 
festation," is  from  the  same  root  and  has  the  same  meaning  as  the 
parallel  expression  to  the  Ephesians,  "God  made  us  alive  with 
Christ,  and  rai.sed  us  with  him,  that  he  may  show  forth  (ivdel^rirai.) 
the  riches  of  his  grace  towards  us"  (Eph.  ii,  7),  and  the  word 
might  be  just  as  adequately  translated  by  any  of  the  quite  synony- 
mous words,  "  showing  forth,  display,  or  exhibition."  Paul  means 
simply,  but  pertinently  to  his  great  theme,  that  God,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  his  Son  as  a  propitiation,  exhibits  to  the  world  his 
method  of  justifying  sinners.  The  Greek  word  irdpeffiv,  here  trans- 
lated passing  over  (incorrectly  given  in  the  Authorized,  "re- 
mission," which  makes  it  a  synonym  of  "  pardon"),  means  quite 
exactly  prelennhsion,  or  letting  go  by.  The  word  is  used  by  Xeno- 
phon  in  exactly  the  same  sense:  "A  trainer  of  horses,  should  not 
let^such  faults  pass  by  unpunished."  (Hipparchus  VII,  10.)  The 
predicative  woi-d  "unpunished"  which  Xenophon  adds  is  clearly 
implied  in  our  text.  Paul's  thought  is,  that  God,  down  to  the 
time  of  Christ,  instead  of  i)romptly  punishing  sin,  as  a  just  Sov- 
ereign might  be  expected  to  do,  let  it  ^'  pass  him  by  unpunished," 
as  if  unnoticed;  not  that  he  formally /or(;ar<'  it  or  ignored  it,  but 
that  h(>  mercifully  foreboi'e  to  punish.  This  was  in  the  time  of  the 
non-age  of  the  Church,  "  the  times  of  ignorance  which  as  yet  God 
winked  at"  (Actsxvii,30)  ;  "  In  the  bygone  generations  he  suffei'ed 
all  the  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways"  (Acts  xiv,  16);  or, 
rather,  as  Paul  represents  it,  the  case  of  the  sinner  was  held  in 
suspense.  And  from  this  point  of  view  we  explain  his  word  preter- 
mission, as  expressing  all  that  God  could  administratively  yet  do. 
Until  Christ  came,  he  could  only  "  wink  at  sin,"  as  if  he  did  not 
notice  it.  Yet,  in  point  of  fact,  God  always  noticed  sin,  and  often 
punished  it,  and  often  pai"doned  it,  accoi-ding  to  the  disposition  of 


ROMANS  III.    25,  26.  135 

the  offenders.  All  along  the  ages  he  forgave  the  sins  of  penitent 
men.  The  psalmist  could  describe  what  must  ever  have  been  a 
frequent  experience:  "Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  for- 
given, and  whose  sins  were  covered."  (Ps.  xxxii,  1.)  This  for- 
bearance of  God  in  the  case  of  sinners  under  the  old  dispensation 
is,  after  all,  exactly  analogous  to  his  forbearance  now.  God  does 
not  now  punish  sin  on  the  instant ;  nor  does  he  therefore  pardon 
it  or  overlook  it.  He  does  what  human  courts  often  do:  He  sus- 
pends sentence;  he  waits  for  our  repentance;  "he  is  long-sufier- 
ing  to  US-ward." 

The  sins  done  before  were  the  sins  of  men,  indiscriminately, 
during  the  long  ages  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  same 
thought  is  expressed,  but  still  more  clearly,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews:  "Christ's  death  took  place  for  the  redemption  of  the 
transgressions  under  the  first  dispensation."  (Heb.  ix,  15.)  The 
text  mai'ks  two  great  administrative  periods,  the  one,  the  era  pre- 
ceding the  atonement ;  the  other,  the  Christian  era  since.  And 
the  sins  referred  to  in  the  text  w^ere  the  sins  during  the  first  long 
reach  of  time,  while  God  waited  until  "  Christ  should  become  the 
Mediator  of  a  better  dispensation."  (Heb.  ix,  15.) 

The  phrase  in  the  forbearance  of  God  stands  in  contrast 
with  the  phrase  in  tlie  next  verse,  in  the  present  time.  It  fol- 
lows that  both  phrases  are  adverbial  elements  of  time;  and  the 
first  phrase  can  not  express  '''the  sphere  of  the  divine  action,"  but 
must  mean  "in  the  time  of  God's  forbearance,"  the  forty  centuries 
of  the  divine  patience  before  Christ  came ;  just  as,  in  the  twenty- 
sixth  verse,  the  phrase,  "  in  the  present  time,"  has  respect  to  the 
Christian  era. 

AVe  now  come  to  the  occasion,  or  ground,  for  God's  setting 
forth  of  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  men :  and  for  the  public 
exhibition  of  his  plan  of  justification.  The  text  says  that  it  was 
on  account  of  God's  pretermission  of  the  by-gone  sins  of 
men.  This  apparent  non-punition  of  sin  constituted  an  anomaly 
in  the  moral  world  that  might  be  misunderstood,  to  the  impeach- 
ment of  God's  justice;  it  was  "on  this  account"  that  God  in  due 
time  exhibited  to  the  world  his  plan  of  justification,  by  which  sin 
could  be  reckoned  with,  and  pardoned.  The  Gospel  scheme  pro- 
vides for  this ;  but  the  system  of  law,  on  which  the  Jews  prided 
themselves,  and  thought  themselves  justified  under  it,  really 
made  no  provision  for  pardon.  Not  the  Jews  in  fact,  and  cer- 
tainly not  the  Gentiles,  have  any  hope  under  the  administration 


136  EXPOSITION. 

of  law.  But  God  now  reveals  to  the  world,  to  Jews  and  Gentiles 
in  common,  a  plan  for  human  salvation  mori;  comprehensive  in  its 
scope  than  the  Jews  had  tlu)Uf,'lit,  and  more  gracious  in  its  provi- 
sions than  the  Gentiles  liad  hoped. 

In  the  twenty-sixth  verse  the  words  of  the  previous  verse  are 
repeated  with  a  slight  deviation.  Yet  it  is  not  a  repetition  of  the 
identical  thought,  for  mere  emphasis'  sake,  as  is  assumed  in  the 
Autliorized  and  the  Revised,  by  the  words  "  I  say  ;"  but  is  a  distinct 
co-ordinate  proposition.  The  distinction  in  the  two  propositions 
is  made  by  the  contrasted  temporal  adverbial  phrases,  in  the 
time  of  God's  forbearance — that  is,  under  the  old  dispensation  ; 
and  in  the  present  time — that  is,  under  the  new  dispensation. 
Fundamentally,  both  dispensations  were  Christian,  alike  ;  but  the 
old  dispensation  looked  forward,  through  types,  to  a  Christ  yet  to 
come,  and  but  obscurely  revealed ;  the  new  dispensation  looks 
back  now  to  a  Christ  already  come,  and  fully  revealed.  From  the 
first  God  planned  for  the  abolition  of  sin:  he  marked  the  first  dis- 
pensation by  the  pretermission  of  sin  ;  he  marks  the  present  dis- 
pensation by  the  remission  of  sin.  In  both  administrations  "God 
is  just,  and  in  both  he  justifies  the  man  who  has  faith."  This  is 
the  apostle's  thought  in  the  next  clause. 

This  final  clause  gives  the  j)urpose  with  which  God  manifested 
to  the  world  his  plan  of  justification,  to  the  end,  namely,  that 
he  may  be  counted  just ;  and  that  he  may  justify  the  man 
of  faith  in  Jesus.  God's  long  forbearance  with  transgressors 
had  the  appearance  of  indifference,  or  even  of  judicial  trifling. 
It  looked  as  if  he  connived  at  sin ;  that  he  overlooked  trangres- 
sion,  when  he  ought  to  have  punished  it.  But  his  delay  was  not 
caprice,  but  longsuffering:  and  tliis  verse  declares  how  he  vindi- 
cated his  administration  from  this  hasty  judgment  of  men.  He 
justified  himself  in  the  forum  of  man's  conscience,  by  exhibiting, 
not  his  desire  for  the  condemnation  of  men,  but  his  plan  for 
their  justification,  his  plan  that  has  always  been  operative  in  the 
world,  though  men  may  not  always  have  known  it;  he  justified 
himself  by  showing  that  the  gospel  plan  provided  from  of  old  an 
atonement  in  the  fullness  of  time  for  sin,  retrospective  in  its  action 
as  well  as  prospective.  It  covers  the  sins  of  the  past,  as  well  as 
the  sins  of  the  present  time.  In  regard  to  both  descriptions,  and 
in  both  periods  of  time,  God  must  beheld  as  just  (justified)  in 
justifying  men,  and  this  means  all  men,  on  the  ground  of  the  uni- 
versal atonement. 


ROMANS  III,  2T.  137 

It  is  true  that  the  last  words  in  the  verse,  him  that  is  of 
faith  in  Jesus,  taken  apart  from  the  context,  might  seem  to 
restrict  justification  to  him  only  (the  adult)  who  has  a  conscious, 
saving  faith  in  Jesus;  and  to  restrict  it  to  the  present  time. 
Certainly  it  is  eminently  true  that  God  does  justify  such  believer; 
but  the  connection  indicates  that  the  expression  includes  all  men, 
of  all  time,  infants  as  well  as  adults,  unbelievers  as  well  as  believ- 
ers, because  all  are  the  actual  purchase  of  Christ's  death,  and  all 
must  be  held  as  idea,lly  coming  under  the  scheme  or  category  of 
"  faith,"  as  over  against  the  category  of  works.  The  expression, 
"  him  that  is  of  faith,"  stands  in  contrast  with  men  of  the  other 
description,  "men  who  are  of  law"  (Ivom.  iv,  4)  ;  men  who,  like 
the  Jews,  count  themselves  "doers  of  law,"  yet  who  "are  not 
justified  by  law."  Only  from  faith  in  Jesus  is  there  justification  ; 
and  in  the  gospel  scheme  tliis  holds  ideally  commensurate  with  the 
entire  race,  for  all  time,  before  Christ  as  well  as  after. 

In  this  whole  discussion,  and  in  all  the  terms  that  Paul  em- 
ploys, he  has  the  Gentile  world  foremost  in  his  thought:  it  is 
their  cause  that  he  pleads  against  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Jews; 
and  it  is  of  them  in  particular  that  he  says,  "  God  justifies  him 
that  is  of  faith  in  Jesus."  It  is  the  same  thought  that  he  ex- 
presses elsewhere,  in  reference  to  the  Gentiles — "  Whom  God  had 
in  his  thought,  he  included  in  his  plan  ;  whom  he  included,  he 
called;  whom  he  called,  he  justified."     (Rom.  viii,  29.) 

Verse  27.    a.  Jew.    "Where  then  is  the  boasting? 
h.  Paul.     It  "was  excluded. 
C.Jew.     Through  what  kind  of  law  ?    Of  the 

works  ? 
d.  Paul.     No  ;  but  through  law  of  faith. 

a.  Jew:  "Where  then  is  our  boasting?  This  verse,  like  the 
first  part  of  the  chapter,  is  in  the  form  of  a  colloquy  between  the 
Jewish  opponent  and  the  apostle.  It  is  very  brief;  but  it  covers 
the  whole  matter,  that  is  in  issue.  The  first  question  inquires  for 
the  standing  of  the  Jews  before  the  Law.  The  question  is  put  in 
general  terms ;  but  the  specific  reference  to  the  Jews  is  best  ex- 
pressed with  the  use  of  the  personal  pronoun,  "  Where  is  our  boast- 
ing?" The  previous  discussion  has  turned  on  the  assumption  of 
the  Jews  that  they  have  a  religious  superiority  over  the  Gentiles  ; 
and  this  is  still  the  feeling  that  lies  on  the  surface  of  this  question. 
The  word  boasting  is  sometimes  taken  in  a  bad  sense,  as  meaning 


138  EXPOSITION. 

"  vainploryinp:"  but  the  only  instance  of  tliis  bad  sense  in  the 
New  Tfstanient  is  in  the  Epistle  of  Jumes,  "Ye  boast  in  your  ar- 
rogances: all  such  boasting  is  bad."  (James  iv,  16.)  Paul  employs 
the  word  ten  times,  always  in  a  good  sense,  as  when  he  himself 
says,  "  This  boasting  of  mine  shall  not  be  stopped  "  (2  Cor.  xi,  10)  ; 
and  similarly  the  psalmist  says,  "My  soul  will  make  her  boast  in 
the  Loi"d  "  (Psa.  xxxiv,  2).  We  must  understand  the  Jews'  word 
here  in  this  good  sense,  and  interpret  it  as  meaning,  "  Where  then 
is  our  wonted  boasting  ?  What  becomes  of  our  prescriptive  claims 
as  God's  peculiar  people?"  Yet,  after  all,  their  question  in  tliis 
connection  resolves  itself,  at  best,  into  a  covert  expression  of  spir- 
itual conceit  on  the  part  of  the  Jew.  And  as  such  Paul  curtly  sets 
it  a^de. 

h.  Paul:  It  "was  excluded.  These  few  words  are  Paul's 
8'ifficient  answer  to  the  assumption  of  the  Jew.  Indeed  his 
Greek  is  even  briefer  yet — only  one  woi-d,  which  we  may  imitate, 
"Excluded!"  The  historical  tense,  "It  was  excluded"  (which  is 
not  recognized  in  the  Authorized  or  the  Revised),  dates  the  exclu- 
sion back  to  the  eternal  plan  of  God.  And  the  apostle's  answer 
means  that  not  only  is  there  no  room  now  for  Jewish  boasting,  but 
there  never  was  any  room.  From  the  very  inception  of  the  Divine 
scheme  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  down  to  the  present  time, 
all  self-glorifying  was  and  is  shut  out.  Boasting  in  one's  election, 
or  works,  or  personal  desert,  is  incompatible  with  the  fact  of 
man's  sinfulness,  with  the  fact  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons 
(even  in  the  case  of  the  Jews),  and  with  the  whole  concept  of  the 
gospel.  All  men  stand  before  the  Law  alike.  Through  all  the 
history  of  God's  dealings  with  man,  not  works  (over  whicli  they 
might  boast),  but  faith  (which  admits  no  element  of  boasting) 
constituted  the  sole  ground  of  justification  witli  God. 

c.  Jew:  Through  "what  kind  of  law?  of  the  works? 
This  question,  like  the  first  one,  is  in  general  terms,  the  works 
(though  the  article  is  omitted  in  both  the  Authorized  and  the  Re- 
vised) ;  but  the  specific  reference  of  the  whole  passage  to  the  Jews, 
requires  that  we  translate,  as  before,  with  the  personal  pronoun, 
"our  works."  And  this  word  "our"  determines  the  sen.se  which 
we  must  attach  to  the  word  "law."  If  the  text  were  simply 
"works,"  without  the  article  or  the  pronoun,  we  might  explain 
the  woi-d  "law"  as  meaning  "principle,"  or  "authority;"  but 
this  interpretation  is  not  logically  possible  with  "our  works."  We 
must  fall  back  on  the  usual  sense  of  law,  as  meaning  "statute,"  or 


ROMANS  III,  27.  139 

"legislation."  And  the  question  means  "  Througli  what  kind  of 
statute  was  our  boasting  excluded?  Was  it  (though  it  is  self- 
contradictory  to  think  or  ask),  was  it  through  the  statute  which 
enjoined  these  works  of  ours  ?"— works  that  the  Ceremonial  Law  re- 
quires of  us,  such  as  circumcision,  and  sacrifices,  and  tithes,  and 
observance  of  things  clean,  and  holy-days?  The  question  thus 
explained  shows  still  the  boastful  spirit  and  attitude  of  the  Jewish 
objector ;  and  still  declares  that  the  Jew  has  no  other  concept  of 
the  way  of  justification,  than  through  works.  He  counts  the  Cere- 
monial Law  as  enjoined,  and  obedience  to  it  as  meritorious,  over 
which  one  may  boast.  And  he  urges  this  point  as  a  reduclio  ad 
absurdum  against  the  apostle's  declaration  that  "boasting  was 
excluded." 

This  position  of  the  Jews  seems  at  first  self-consistent.  But 
here  was  the  fatal  fallacy  in  their  argument.  They  did  not  do  the 
works  of  which  they  boasted  ;  and  therefore  they  were  not  so  jus- 
tified before  God.  They  could  boast  of  works,  only  if,  like  the 
sinless  angels,  they  had  always  obeyed,  and  perfectly  obeyed,  God's 
moral  law.  "  The  Jews,  as  well  as  sinners  from  the  Gentiles,  were 
not  justified  by  works  of  law,  but  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ." 
(Gal.  iii.  16.) 

d.  Paul:  No;  but  through  la"w  of  faith.  The  question  of 
the  Jew  is,  "Was  our  boasting  excluded  through  the  law  which 
enjoins  our  works  ?"  In  this  question  the  Jew  thought  only  of 
ceremonial  and  ritual  works,  but  attached  to  them  a  moral  and 
saving  value.  Now  Paul  would  grant  that  if  there  be  boasting  at 
all  it  must  be  in  "  works  ;"  but  it  must  be  in  moral  works,  not  in 
such  ceremonial  works  as  the  Jew  has  in  mind,  and  whose  moral 
value  Paul  does  not  recognize.  It  is  by  this  defect  in  moral  value 
that  their  boasting  of  their  works  was  excluded.  And  so,  to  their 
question,  Paul's  answer  is  a  peremptory  "  No."  It  is  not  through 
such  a  law  of  ceremonial  works  of  theirs,  that  their  boasting  was 
excluded;  but  "through  the  law  of  faith."  Not  even  Abraham, 
as  we  shall  read  in  the  next  chapter,  the  root  and  the  ideal  man  of 
the  Jewish  Church,  had  any  ground  for  boasting.  The  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  excludes  reliance  on  legal  obedience,  and  establishes 
faith  as  the  sole  ground  of  justification.  No  man  can  boast. 
Everything  is  of  God's  grace,  not  of  God's  indebtedness  to  man. 
"  What  hast  thou  which  thou  didst  not  receive  [as  a  gift]  ?  But  if 
thou  also  receivest  it  [as  a  gift],  why  dost  thou  boast,  as  not  hav- 
ing received  it  ?"    (1  Cor.  iv,  7.) 


140  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  28.  For  we  reckon  that  man  is  justified  by  faith, 
apart  from  works  of  law. 

Of  the  two.Hiul  Dili}-  two,  coiici'ivable  methods  of  justification, 
from  works,  and  from  faith  [see  note  on  verse  201,  the  former  is 
now  cK'arly  shown  impossible  for  man.  There  remains  only  tin; 
latter:  Man  is  justified  by  faith,  apart  from  works.  The 
woi*d  man  is  generic  ;  it  inchules  tlie  whok^  race  of  Adam,  now  the 
whole  race  of  Christ;  and  it  sliould  not  be  taken  indefinitely  "a 
man,"  as  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised.  It  may,  indeed,  be 
questioned  whether  that  is  Greek.  The  text  but  expx-esses  the 
ideal  working  of  the  gospel ;  the  atonement  embraces  the  race  ; 
every  man  is  justified  from  the  guilt  and  the  penalty  of  sin.  But 
it  is  not  lience  to  be  concluded  that  all  men  are  finally  to  be  saved. 
"Justification  is  with  a  view  to  sanctification,"  the  "holiness 
without  which  no  man  will  see  the  Lord."  But  if  a  man  will  not 
sanctify  himself,  his  erstwhile  justification  is  unavailing.  "Once 
in  grace"  can  be  said  of  all  men ;  "  always  in  grace  "  can  be  said 
only  of  those  who  persevere. 

Verse  29.  Or  is  God  God  of  Jews  only  ?  is  he  not  God 
of  Gentiles  also  ? 

The  conjunction  or  (which  is  not  given  in  the  Authorized), 
when  it  thus  introduces  a  question,  implies  a  demur  to  the  pre- 
vious proposition  and  suggests  an  alternative  which  is  itself  not 
admissible.  It  is  as  if  the  apostle  said  to  the  Jew:  "Or,  if  you 
demur  to  this  statement  of  the  case  of  the  Gentiles,  what  then 
will  you  say  ?  is  God  God  of  Jqws  only  ?"  The  question  which  Paul 
here  asks  contains  really  the  kernel  of  the  whole  Epistle.  The 
moot  point  in  the  Epistle,  briefly  put,  is,  Who  are  embraced  in  the 
divme  plan  ?  "Is  God  God  of  Jews  only  ?  is  he  not  (iod  of  Gentiles 
also?" 

The  debate,  so  far,  in  this  chapter,  between  the  Jew  and  Paul, 
has  been,  substantially,  on  this  very  point, — the  actual  bearing  of 
God's  plan  of  justification,  and  the  relation  of  the  Gentiles  to  this 
plan.  The  conclusion  which  Paul  reaches  is  that  men  are  justified 
by  faith  alone,  and  not  by  works,  as  the  Jews  boasted  ;  and  that 
the  Gentiles  thus  stand  before  the  law  of  God,  and  before  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  in  exactly  the  same  attitude  as  the  Jews.  Both 
are  equally  sinful,  equally  need  justification,  are  equally  depend- 
ent on  the  provisions  of  the  gospel  for  pai"don  and  salvation  ;  and 


ROMANS  III,  30.  141 

they  come  into  this  equal  participation  because  they  are  equally 
the  children  of  one  common  Father.  It  is  with  this  thought  that 
the  apostle  asks  the  question  of  this  verse,  "  Is  God  God  of  Jews 
only  ?  is  he  not  God  of  Gentiles  also  ?" 

Verse  30.  Yes ;  of  Gentiles  also  ;  if  in  fact  God  is  one 
[and  not  many]  ;  who  will  justify  circumcision  from  faith, 
and  imcircumcision  through  the  [same]  faith. 

The  word  one  in  this  verse  is  not  the  indefinite  pronoun,  but 
the  numeral.  The  Jews'  denial  that,  for  all  men  alike,  justification 
is  by  faith,  and  not  by  works ;  and  the  denial  that  the  Gentiles 
have  an  equal  place  in  God's  plan,  involves  substantially  a  denial 
of  the  unity  of  God.  If  God  is  one,  and  not  many,  he  is  God 
everywhere,  and  God  of  all  men  ;  not  of  Jews  only,  but  of  Gentiles 
also ;  he  has  but  one  scheme  of  moral  government  for  men,  and 
therefore  but  one  plan  of  justification.  This  conclusion  must  be 
conceded  by  the  Jews  from  their  monotheism.  There  is  but  one 
God,  and  he  is  God  of  all.  It  is  only  on  the  assumption  that  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles  do  not  have  the  same  God  that  we  can  think 
them  under  different  economies,  or  administrations,  and  under 
different  methods  of  justification.  The  Jews  who  deemed  them- 
selves peculiarly  God's  elect  did  not  cheerfully  recognize  this 
common  Fatherhood  of  God  with  regard  to  the  Gentiles  ;  but  they 
never  denied  it.  It  is  a  truth  taught  in  their  Scriptures.  Their 
prophets  expressed  it  boldly  and  broadly.  The  great  evangelical 
prophet  says:  "Doubtless  thou  art  our  Father:  though  Abraham 
be  ignorant  of  us,  and  Israel  acknowledge  us  not,  yet  thou, 
Jehovah,  art  our  Father,  our  Redeemer."  (Isa.  Ixiii,  16.)  And  the 
last  of  the  prophets  says:  "  Have  we  not  all  one  Father?  hath  not 
one  God  created  us?"    (Mai.  ii,  10.) 

The  woi'ds  circumcision  and  uncircumcision  mean  Jew  and* 
Gentile.  The  terms,  being  without  the  article,  describe  rather 
than  enumerate ;  and  mean,  therefore,  not  so  much  all  of  the  one 
category,  or  of  the  other,  as  they  mean  persons  having  the  given 
characteristics ;  or  perhaps,  rather,  the  religious  status  of  the  sev- 
eral classes.  Yet.  as  we  have  seen  in  verse  26,  the  gospel  ideally 
includes  the  race,  all  of  the  Circumcision,  all  of  the  Uncircumcision. 

The  difference  expressed  by  the  two  prepositions,"  from  faith — 
through  the  faith,"  is  not  so  pronounced  but  that  perhaps  they 
might  have  been  interchanged,  or  either  one  used  in  both  clauses. 
But  we  may  detect  a  possible  shade  of  difference  in  the  apostle's 


142  ICX  POSITION. 

concepts,  as  expressed  in  his  word  "  faitli  "  without  the  article; 
and  liis  word  with  it.  CJod  will  justify  Jews,  not  by  works,  but 
out  of  faith  in  a  coming  Messiali,  which  underlay  the  wliole  Jewish 
dispensation;  and  he  will  justify  tiie  (ientiles  thraitgh  the  faith, 
their  new  creed,  which  they  espouse  in  coming  to  Christ. 

Verse  31.    Jfw  :  Do  we,  then,  abrogate  law  through  the 
faith  ? 
Paul:    God.   forbid  I    Nay,  but  we  estabUsh 
law. 

The  word  law^  is  without  tlie  article,  and,  as  always,  means 
tiie  ethical  law,  which  in  its  own  nature  is  universal  and  eternal. 
Witli  this  law,  faith,  or  more  exactly  the  faith — that  is,  the  gospel 
— is  not  inconsistent.  This  law,  if  obeyed,  secures  justification  ;  it 
is  intended  for  this  and  not  for  condemnation.  But,  failing  this, 
faith  in  Christ  is  the  divinely  appointed  substitute  for  law,  for 
man's  justification.  Faith  is  God's  method  of  justifying  those 
whom  law  can  not  justify.  (Rom.  viii,  3. )  And  when  we  preach  the 
gospel  of  faith,  we  not  only  do  not  antagonize  law,  or  abrogate  it, 
we  confirm  and  establish  it.  "Christ  is  the  end  (fulfillment)  of 
law,  unto  justification,  to  every  one  that  has  faith."    (Rom.  x,  4.) 


CHAPTEK    lY. 


Verse  1.  Jew  :  "What  then  shall  we  say  that  Abraham 
oiir  forefather  has  found  according  to  the  flesh  ? 

The  words  must  be  understood  as  the  words  of  the  Jewish  ob- 
jector, as  before,  in  the  tliird  chapter. 

The  word  forefather  is  found  in  this  place  only  in  the  New 
Testament;  and  it  is  evidently  used  in  its  literal  sense,  as  spoken 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  natural  Israel.  When  Paul  speaks, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  gospel,  of  the  relation  of  the  spiritual 
Israel  to  Abraham,  as  in  the  twelfth  verse  of  this  chapter,  his 
word  is  "  father,"  not  "  forefather."  The  case  of  Abraham  comes 
into  consideration  here  in  the  following  way :  In  the  third  chap- 
ter, the  apostle  has  shown,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Jews  at  large 
can  not  rely  on  works  for  justification,  and  can  not  boast  of  merit 
before  God.  But  the  Jews  hold  that,  however  the  case  stood  with 
the  bulk  of  the  nation,  at  least  Abraham,  their  great  forefather, 
the  ideal  Jew,  the  friend  of  God,  was  justified  by  his  personal 
merits,  and,  so,  had  a  ground  of  "boasting;"  and,  further,  they 
believed  that  his  supererogatory  merits  descended  to.his  posterity, 
the  elect  nation.*  They  prided  themselves  on  their  descent:  "  We 
have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  we  are  Abraham's  seed."  It  is  with 
this  feeling  in  regard  to  their  great  ancestor  that  the  objector 
now  asks,  as  a  conclusive  reply  to  Paul's  views,  "What,  then 
(on  the  ground  of  your  teaching  as  to  the  Jews  at  large),  shall  we 
say  that  Abraliam,  our  forefather,  has  found  according  to  the 
flesh?" 

The  Authorized  and  the  Revised  connect  the  phrase  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  as  an  adjective  element,  with  the  word  "  fore- 
father."    But  this  word  "  forefather,"  as  the  expression  for  the 

*Cf.  Edershelm's  "Jesus  the  Messiah."    I,  271. 

143 


144  EXPOSITION. 

imturnl  relation,  already  carries  in  itself  its  full  specific  meaning; 
and  tlu'  phrase  "according  to  tlie  Hesh  "  can  add  nothing  wliat- 
ever  to  the  sense.  Besides,  such  a  connection  for  the  phrase 
would  leave  the  verb  has  found  without  any  words  to  mark  the 
trend  and  end  of  Abraham's  seeking  and  finding.  But  the  phrase 
"according  to  the  flesh,"  must  connect  logically,  as  an  adverbial 
element,  with  the  verb  "has  found;"  and  it  is  parallel  with  the 
equivalent  adverbial  phrase  "  from  works,"  in  the  second  verse. 
So  connected,  the  words  "according  to  the  flesh"  must  mean  "on 
the  basis  of  his  personal  works  and  deserts." 

Verse  2.  Paxti, :  [Nothing  at  all]  ;  for  if  Abraham  was 
justified  from  works,  he  has  a  ground  of  boasting.  Nay, 
but  [he  has  no  ground  for  boasting]  before  God. 

The  conjunction  for  is  always  explicative  and  confirmatory; 
but  here  it  does  not  at  first  seem  easy  to  trace  the  reference  of 
the  word.  The  connection  of  the  thought  does  not  permit  us  to 
make  the  second  verse  a  continuation  of  the  Jew's  speech  in  the 
first  verse,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  in  counting  the  second  verse  as 
Paul's,  can  we  think  that  his  words  are  meant  to  explain  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Jew.  The  simple  explanation  suggested  by  the  word 
"  for,"  is  to  supply,  as  Paul's  direct  answer  to  the  question  of  the 
Jew  in  the  first  verse,  the  woi-d  Xothing;  and  to  refer  the  word 
"for"  to  this  supplied  word,  "nothing."  This  connection  of 
thought  will  then  run  thus: 

Jew.  "  What  has  Abraham  found  according  to  the  flesh  [that 
is,  on  the  ground  of  works]? 

Paul.  ^'Nothing  whatever;  for  if  he  was  justified  fi'om 
works — ." 

The  apostle's  compressed  style  corresponds  with  his  close- 
packed  meaning.  Ofttimes  his  letters  (which,  we  must  recollect, 
were  all  dictated)  do  not  supply  all  the  steps  of  his  own  rapid 
movement.  His  thought  outruns  his  utterances,  or  the  pen  of  his 
amanuensis;  and  he  skips  to  catch  up  with  himself.  Other  more 
deliberate  writers  indulge  in  ellipses  of  single  words ;  Paul  in- 
dulges in  ellipses  of  whole  logical  members  ;  and  the  reader  is  left 
embarrassed,  or  is  constrained  to  supply  the  missing  link  or  links, 
from  the  proprieties  of  the  connection.  The  sentence  before  us  is 
a  striking  illustration  of  this  ellipsis,  and  of  the  need  to  supple- 
ment the  sense ;  and  the  very  next  clause  of  this  verse  furnishes 


ROMANS  ir,  2.  145 

another  instance  of    this  elliptic  construction.    The  connection 
runs  thus : 

"  If  Abraliam  was  justified  by  works,  he  has  a  ground  of  boast- 
ing.    Nay,  but  not  [has  he  any  ground  of  boasting]  towards  God." 

In  the  ninth  verse  we  have  another  instance  of  the  ellipsis  of 
a  logical  member ;  thus : 

*'  Comes  this  happiness  on  the  Circumcision?  or  on  the  Uncir- 
cumcision?  [On  the  Uncircumcision]  for  we  say,  Faith  was  reck-, 
oned  to  [the  uncircumcised]  Abraham  unto  justification." 

The  matter  is  sufficiently  important  to  justify  further  illus- 
tration. In  Galatians,  Paul  gives  us  two  instances  in  one  verse: 
"Does  he  who  works  miracles  among  you,  do  it  from  works  of 
law?  or  from  preaching  of  faith?  [From  preaching  of  faith]; 
even  as  [it  has  been  written]  Abraham  had  faith  in  God,  and  it 
was  reckoned  to  him  unto  justification."  (Gal.  iii,  5.)  Again: 
"Man  is  not  justified  from  works  of  law  [nor  in  any  way]  if  not 
through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  (Gal,  ii,  16.)  Again:  "  In  the  Law 
of  Moses,  it  has  been  written,  Thou  shaft  not  muzzle  an  ox  tread- 
ing out  grain.  Is  it  the  oxen  that  God  cares  for?  or  does  he  say  it 
wholly  for  our  sake?  [Not  for  oxen],  for  it  was  written  for  our 
sake."  (1  Cor.  ix,  9.)  Again  :  "  But  I  say,  Did  not  Israel  know? 
[Certainly,  he  did] :  the  first  witness,  Moses,  says, — .     (Rom.  x,  19.) 

In  the  sentence  If  Abraham  was  justified— the  postulating 
conjunction  "if"  and  the  indicative  mode  "was"  (not  the  sub- 
junctive ''were,"  as  in  the  Authorized)  expresses  what  Paul,  who 
did  not  hold  this  view,  yet  for  argument's  sake,  concedes  as  a  fact: 
"  Jf  Abraham  %vas  justified  by  works  (as  the  Jews  affirm),  he  has  a 
ground  of  boasting."  The  word  boasting  here  alludes  to  the 
word  "boasting"  in  Chapter  iii,  27,  the  conceit  of  the  Jews  that 
they  were  just  before  God. 

Nay :  but  [he  has  no  ground  for  boasting]  before  God. 
The  conjunction  aXXd  "but,"  here  used,  is  the  strongest  adversa- 
tive in  the  language  ;  and  its  force  can  best  be  reproduced  in  Eng- 
lish with  the  help  of  the  negative  adverb  "  Nay."  The  sentence  is 
the  apostle's  summary  and  curt  contradiction  to  the  objector's 
assumption.  The  whole  argument,  which  the  objector  has  based 
upon  Abraham's  case,  is  unhistorical  for  the  patriarch  ;  and  as  un- 
scriptural  as  the  claim  which  he  previously  set  up  for  the  nation 
at  large.  Neither  themselves  nor  the  father  of  their  race  can 
claim  any  merit  from  works  before  God. 
10 


14r.  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  3.  For  what  says  the  Scripture?  "But  Abra- 
ham had  faith  in  God;  and  it  [his  faith]  was  reckoned  to 
him  unto  justification." 

The  Hebrew  original  differs  from  this  slightly  in  the  form  of 
expression,  but  not  in  the  sense:  "Abraliam  believed  on  Jehovah; 
and  he  counted  it  to  liini  unto  justification."  (Gen.  xv,  6.)  Clearly 
it  was  not  merely  his  liistorical  belief,  the  assent  of  liis  intellect, 
that  brouglit  liim  justification;  for,  on  that  ground,  even  Satan 
could  be  justified:  "The  devils  also  believe,  and  tremble."*  The 
Hebrew  word  here  translated  "he  believed,"  TP^^^v*  ^^^  same 
word,  from  which  comes  the  word  ^' amen,"  "confirmation,"  "  es- 
tablishment,"+  implies  a  repose,  a  trust,  in  the  saving  power  of 
God's  promise.  Abraham  relied  first  on  God's  veracity  ;  but  his 
faith  went  much  further;  and  he  trusted  in  God  to  the  salvation 
of  his  soul.  "  He  stayed  himself  on  Jehovali  " — which  is  the  lit- 
eral meaning  of  the  Hebrew — and  God  counted  it  to  him  unto 
justification.  It  was  on  the  ground  of  this  spiritual  sun-eiider  of 
himself,  this  recumbency  of  soul  on  the  promises  of  God,  that  he 
was  justified  before  God,  and  became  "  the  father  of  the  faithful " 
(the  men  of  faith),  "  the  friend  of  God." 

In  the  statement  of  Moses,  hei-e  quoted  by  Paul,  and  reaf- 
firmed by  him,  we  liave  the  historical  fact  in  regard  to  Abraiiam's 
justification.  It  was  not  any  work  of  law,  but  \\\<,  failh  tliat  brought 
him  accei)tance  with  God,  pardon  of  sin,  and  regeneration  of  heart. 
In  the  case  of  Abraham,  his  justification,  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  themselves,  against  wliat  the  Jews  held,  was 
merely  a  matter  of  grace,  that  is,  a  gratuity,  and  not  of  merit,  or 
earned  by  his  works.  And  the  fifth  verse  below  declares  that  this 
is  the  normal  method  of  justification  for  all  men.  It  has  always 
been  the  sole  method. 

Verse  4.  But  to  him  that  works,  the  reward  is  not 
reckoned,  as  a  matter  of  grace,  but  as  a  matter  of  debt. 

This  is  a  simple  business  proposition  that  holds  true,  first  of 
all,  in  our  secular  life.     Wherever  a  workman  does  his  task,  he 


•Dr.  South  says  there  Is  no  one  In  the  universe  so  orthodox  as  Satan, 
except  God. 

+  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "ame7i,"wlth  which  we  conclude 
our  prayers.  The  word  does  not  so  much  sum  up  what  has  been  said,  with 
a  brief  repetition  of  theprayer,  "  Let  it  be  so,"  as  it  declares  our  faith  that 
God  has  granted  all  that  we  asked:  "It  is  so." 


ROMANS  IV.    5,  6,  7,  S.  147 

earns  his  wages ;  and  they  are  not  given  to  him  as  a  gratuity,  but 
of  right  and  indebtedness.  As  applied  to  the  religious  life,  the 
verb  works  means  "does  works  of  law"  with  view  to  reward; 
and  the  man  who  "does"  these  earns  his  wages  (justitication  and 
eternal  life)  as  his  right,  and  not  as  a  gift.  In  the  common  every- 
day life,  all  workmen  work  their  way,  and  earn  their  pay.  But  in 
the  religious  life,  no  man  now  earns  justification.  "  By  works  of 
law  will  no  flesh  be  justified  before  God"  (Rom.  iii,  20)  ;  'Man 
is  not  justified  by  works  of  law,  but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ"  (Gal.  ii,  16). 

Verse  5.  But  to  him  that  works  not,  but  has  faith  on 
him  that  justifies  the  ungodly  man,  his  faith  is  reckoned 
unto  justification. 

By  tlie  words  works  not  the  apostle  does  not  deny  good 
works,  or  the  obligation  of  them,  as  the  evidence  of  the  Christian 
man's  profession.  But  works  can  not  go  beyond  that:  no  merit 
attaches  to  them,  nor  does  any  merit  indeed  attach  to  faith. 
Herein,  Paul  argues,  is  God's  way  of  justification  as  set  over 
against  the  vain  boasting  of  the  Jews.  With  God  no  man  has  any 
desert,  not  even  Abraham.  He  earns  nothing.  Everything  is  of 
grace.  Faith  in  Christ  is  the  only  pathway  to  justification,  and 
to  sanctification,  and  salvation.  This  is  not  a  novel  doctrine,  but 
as  old  as  the  race.  The  Jews  ought  to  have  known  it;  and  indeed 
they  did  know  it,  but  ignored  it.  It  is  the  salient  feature  in  the 
history  of  Abraham.  Nor  is  this  doctrine  antagonistic  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  law:  it  confirms  the  Law.  And  it  is  established  as  the 
Old  Testament  doctrine  by  the  testimony  of  David,  in  the  next 
verses. 

Verses  6,  7,  8.  According  as  also  David  tells  the  hap- 
piness of  the  man  to  w^hom  God  reckons  justification, 
apart  from  w^orks : 

Happy  they  whose  iniquities  were  forgiven, 
And  whose  sins  were  covered ; 

Happy  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon 
sin!     (Ps.  xxxii,  1.) 

This  psalm  is  here  expressly  assigned  to  David  ;  and  is  so 
recognized  by  the  critics.  It  was  written  by  him  after  his  sin  with 
Bathsheba.  The  tense  of  the  verbs  shows  that  the  psalmist,  when 
he  wrote  these  words,  looked  back  to  a  long-past  forgiveness. 


148  EXPOSITION. 

The  verb  liere  correctly  translnted  to  reckon — that  ia,  to 
count,  accredit— is  found  ten  times  in  this  clmpter  and  about 
twenty  times  more  in  Piuil's  Epistles.  In  six  of  the  places  in 
this  cliapter  (verses  6,  8,  11,  22,  23,  24),  and  elsewhere,  the  Author- 
ized Version,  following  the  I.atin  Vulgate  (imputare,  rrpulare) 
translates  it  to  impute;"  that  is,  to  attribute.  This  chapter  is 
the  professed  Scriptural  basis  for  the  famous  figment  of  "  im- 
puted sin"  and  of  "imputed  righteousness,"  which,  since  the 
days  of  Augustine,  has  so  strangely  leavened  the  theology  of  the 
of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  justification. 
Further,  tiie  unfortunate  mistranslation  of  the  Greek  word  for 
justification  by  the  English  word  "  righteousness,"  and  the  indis- 
criminate use,  in  theological  discussions,  of  this  one  word  "  right- 
eousness "  for  the  two  unlike  concepts  "justification"  and 
"  holiness,"  has  helped  on  tliis  doctrinal  error  of  imputation. 

"  Imputation"  in  Augustinian  and  Calvinistic  theology  is  the 
dogma  that,  in  the  divine  counsels,  Adam's  personal  sin,  and  the 
guilt  of  it,  is  attributed  to  his  descendants,  as  if  their  own  (and, 
of  course,  also  attributed  to  Christ,  who  takes  our  place  before  the 
law)  ;  and  that,  similarly,  Christ's  righteousness  (which,  logic- 
ally, can  only  mean  his  personal  holiness),  and  the  merit  of  it,  is 
attributed  to  the  elect  as  if  tlieir  own. 

This  is  one  of  the  stock  tenets  of  Calvinistic  theology.  It 
looks  plausible,  at  first,  as  a  working  theory  of  the  atonement.  It 
pervaded  almost  all  the  earlier  theological  literature;  and  it  even 
infected  many  who  in  other  points  were  far  from  Calvinism.  John 
■\Vesley,  in  treating  of  "  Imputation,"  adopts  the  expression  "  im- 
putation of  Christ's  righteousness,"  showing  that  he  was  caught 
in  the  toils  of  Calvinistic  phraseology,  if  he  did  not  incline  to 
Calvinistic  views.  And  no  wonder;  for  up  to  his  time  there  was 
very  little  theological  literature  that  was  not  tainted  with  this 
heresy  More  recently  the  Wesleyan  Churciies  deny  altogether 
the  dogma  of  "original  sin,"  as  defined  above,  and  of  "imputa- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness ;"  and  now  a  considerable  school 
of  theologians,  who  nevertheless  still  call  themselves  Calvinistic 
(the  new  school  Calvinists  of  New  England),  reject  this  tenet  in 
toto;  and  most  other  Calvinists  hold  it  less  obtrusively,  if  not  less 
tenaciously. 

The  imputation  to  men  of  Adam's  sin,  and  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, is  unnecessary  for  a  theodicy,  unreasonable  and  unscrip- 
tural.     The  Bible  nowhere  says,  or  implies,  or  can  be  warped  to 


ROMANS  IV.    6,  7,  8.  149 

mean,  that  the  sin  and  guilt,  or  the  righteousness  (lioliness),  of 
one  person  is  transferable,  or  is  ever  attributed,  to  another.  The 
single  verse  here  that  affirms  in  regard  to  tlie  reckoning  of  sin 
—"Happy  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  reckon  sin  "— 
by  all  the  implications  of  the  passage  limits  the  "sin"  to  the 
man's  own  (rmmjression  and  guilt;  and  tlie  single  verse  here  that 
affirms  in  regard  to  God's  reckoning  aught  unto  man's  justifica- 
tion, limits  it,  not  to  Christ's  righteousness,  but  to  the  man's  own 
faith.  "His  faith  is  reckoned  unto  justification."*  Affirmation 
more  explicit  than  these  verses,  or  inconsistent  with  these  verses, 
there  is  absolutely  none  in  the  Scripture.  The  passages  that  can 
be  quoted  for  the  correct  view  are  many,  and  they  are  all  of  one 
tenor.  The  imputation  to  man  of  aught  else  than  his  own  sin, 
unto  condemnation,  or  of  aught  else  than  his  own  faith,  unto  jus- 
tification, is  unethical,  dishonoring  to  God,  unjust  to  man,  sub- 
versive of  all  feeling  of  personal  responsibility. 

There  may  be  acts  of  others  that  leave  their  effects  in  us; 
some  resulting  to  our  injury,  as  Adam's  sin,  some  resulting  to  our 
good,  as  Christ's  vicarious  death ;  both  of  which  are  objective  to 
us ;  but  they  are  not  transferable  to  us ;  they  do  not  become  ele- 
ments of  character,  and  they  can  not  be  "imputed"  to  us,  set 
down  to  our  merit  or  to  our  demerit.  In  God's  dealings  with  us, 
it  is  only  our  own  sin  and  guilt,  and  our  own  faith,  subjective 
elements,  that  are  imputed  or  reckoned  to  us,  whether  unto  con- 
demnation, or  unto  justification.  Character,  moral  quality,  can 
not  be  transferred  from  one  to  another,  and  infused  into  his 
personality.  A  man  is  ethically  only  what  he  makes  himself. 
In  the  sphere  of  ethics,  nothing  else  than  what  is  our  own  can 
be  imputed  or  credited  to  us ;  and  so  God  never  violates  man's 
freedom,  either  by  making  him  sinful,  or  by  making  him  holy. 
In  the  direction  of  holiness  God  presents  motives  and  gives  man 
power  to  act;  but  he  never  acts /or  him;  that  is,  instead  of  him. 
If  man  is  to  be  holy,  it  must  be  (witli  God's  help)  by  his  own 
choice,  and  his  own  action.  The  gospel  teaches  the  synergism  of 
man  and  God.  Neither  can  accomplish  human  salvation  without 
the  other.     Paul  bids  the  Philippians,  "  Work  out  your  own  salva- 

*The  theology  in  Count  Zinzendorf's  beautiful  hymn  is  Calvinistlc, 
not  Wesleyan  or  Pauline: 

"Jesus,  thy  blood  and  righteousness 
My  beauty  are,  my  glorious  dress." 
It  is  only  as  a  pious  rigmarole  of  words  that  any  Arminian  can  sing  It. 


150  EXPOSITION. 

tion  ;  for  it  is  Gcxi  who  works  in  you  to  will  and  to  work,  for  [inrkp, 
to  gratify!  his  good  pleasui*e."     (Phil,  ii,  12.) 

As  holiness  is  not  an  objective  gift,  like  justification,  but  a 
subjective  state  of  the  affections,  it  is  not  obtained  in  a  moment, 
but  attained  only  by  long  and  patient  culture.  "We  must  grovj  in 
grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "  until  we 
come  to  a  mature  man,  to  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  full- 
ness of  Christ."  (Eph.  iv,  13.)  As  growth  is  a  process,  it  implies 
lapse  of  time.  It  must  be  gradual,  though  it  need  not  be  slow. 
Maturity  of  character,  which  should  be  the  constant  aim  of  every 
believer,  is  not  reached  in  a  day  or  a  week.  If  it  were  the  possible 
product  of  mere  naked  power,  then  we  might  rationally  look  for  it 
to  be  wrought  instantaneously  through  the  sovereign  agency  of 
God;  but  it  is  not  such  a  product;  and  it  is  not  in  this  direction 
that  God's  sovereignty  is  exercised.  While  the  Christian  life  is 
begun,  continued,  and  ended,  under  the  impulses  of  Divine  grace, 
it  also  involves  unconstrained  human  co-operation  at  every  stage. 

Verse  9.  Comes  this  happiness,  then,  upon  the  Circum- 
cision? or  also  upon  the  Uncircumcision  ?  [Upon  the  Uncir- 
cumcision,  also] ;  for  we  say  that  to  Abraham  his  faith  was 
reckoned  unto  justification. 

The  words  Circumcision  and  Uncircumcision  are  here  taken 
concretely,  as  often,  for  tiie  Jews,  and  tlie  Gentiles,  and  the  verse 
means:  Does  the  happiness  of  pardoned  sin,  the  blessedness  of 
justification  in  the  sight  of  God,  extend  to  the  Jews  only?  or  can 
Gentiles  also  be  justified  ?  The  answer  needs  to  be  supplied,  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  note  on  verse  2;  "It  comes  upon  the  Uncir- 
cumcision also:"  and  the  woi*d  for,  which  refers  to  this  answer, 
cites,  in  proof,  the  historical  instance  of  Abraham,  who,  at  the  time 
of  his  justification,  was  yet  an  uncircumcised  man.  And  the  ex- 
ample of  Abraham,  a  representative  man,  shows  that  justification 
comes  upon  the  uncircumcised  Gentile,  as  well  as  upon  the  circum- 
cised Jew — upon  both  on  the  common  ground  oi  faith. 

Verse  10.  How  then  was  it  reckoned  to  him?  Being 
in  circumcision  ?  or  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision  ; 
nay,  but  in  uncircumcision. 

The  word  how  means  "  in  what  circumstances?"  as  a  circum- 
cised man?  or  as  an  uncircumcised?  The  answer  is  found  in  the 
data  in  the  book  of  Genesis.    Abi'aham  was  probably  about  eighty 


ROMANS  IV,  10.  151 

years  of  age  when  "  his  faith  was  reckoned  to  him  unto  justifica- 
tion "  (Gen.  XV,  6) ;  but  "  he  was  ninety  years  old  and  nine,  when 
he  was  circumcised"  (Gen.  xvii,  24).  He  was  justified,  then,  not 
being  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircumcision ;  and  his  cir- 
cumcision was  not,  as  the  Jews  hold  with  regard  to  themselves, 
the  ground  of  his  acceptance  and  justification  with  God ;  but  his 
justification,  though  it  was  nearly  twenty  years  earlier,  was  the 
ground  of  his  circumcision;  as  it  is  said  in  the  next  verse:  "And 
he  received  the  sign,  or  rite,  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  his  jus- 
tification from  faith— the  faith  which  was  his  while  he  was  in  his 
uncircumcision." 

Circumcision  was  practiced  by  the  priests  of  Egypt,  and  else- 
where, before  the  days  of  Abraham.  Its  origin  is  not  known  ;  but 
it  was  even  thus  early  the  conventional  symbol  of  ritual  purity 
and  consecration.  As  such  it  was  afterwards  sanctioned  by  God, 
and  required  of  Abraham,  and  the  Jews  after  him.  It  was  the 
outward  note  in  the  flesh,  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  them- 
selves ;  and  marked  them  off  from  the  rest  of  the  world  as  "a 
kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  [that  is,  a  consecrated]  nation." 
(Ex.  xix,  6.)  The  Jews,  who  at  first  came  to  the  practice  of  cir- 
cumcision only  by  degrees,  afterwards  prided  themselves  in  it,  as 
their  patent  of  nobility,  as  a  peculiar  discrimination  from  the 
Gentile  world.  It  was  the  rite  which  admitted  their  male  children, 
'•circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,"  to  membership  in  the  national 
and  theocratic  Israel.  It  was  the  rite  by  which  proselytes  from 
the  heathen  world  became  incorporated  in  the  Jewish  nation  and 
Church.  Without  circumcision  Gentiles  were  permitted  to  enter 
the  synagogue,  but  not  to  enter  the  temple,  or  to  share  in  the 
Paschal  festivities  ;  or  even  to  eat  with  a  Jew.  Finally,  from  this 
notion  of  ritual  separation,  the  name  of  the  rite  became  exalted 
and  spiritualized  into  the  sense  of  religious  purity  and  separation  ; 
and  it  was  so  used  by  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  by 
the  writers  in  the  New  Testament.  Paul  talks  much  of  this  higher 
"  circumcision  of  the  heart." 

Circumcision  denoted  consecration  to  God,  and  obligation  to 
the  ritual  Law  of  Moses ;  but  the  Jews  went  still  further,  and 
finally  held  that  their  circumcision  implied  that  they  actually 
fulfilled  all  the  Law,  moral  as  well  as  ritual,  and  so,  by  virtue  of 
their  circumcision,  stood  justified  before  God.  This  view  Paul,  of 
course,  rejected  ;  and,  holding  that  the  gospel  provided  another 
method  of  justification,  he  held  that  circumcision  had  ceased  to 


152  EXPOSITION. 

bo  obligatory  on  tlio  Jews.  "  In  Christ  noither  circumcision  avails 
augiit,  nor  uncirciinicision  ;  but  faith."  ((ial.  v,6.)  Yet  lie  circum- 
cised  Timothy,  who  was  a  Jew  born,  not  because  it  was  a  savinj^ 
ordinance,  but  because  only  by  this  rite  could  Timothy,  as  Paul's 
companion,  enjoy  among  tlie  Jews  the  civil  and  religious  immuni- 
ties which  were  his  by  birthright.  (Acts  xvi,  3.)  But  holding  that 
the  rite  had  in  itself  no  saving  value,  he  refused  on  this  ground  to 
circumcise  Titus,  who  was  a  Gentile.  (Gal.  ii,  3.)  With  this  con- 
viction of  the  religious  worthlessness  of  circumcision,  he  stigma- 
tized the  Jews  who  relied  on  it,  as  "  tlie  Concision,"  the  manr/lera 
of  the  flesh  (Phil,  iii,  2)!  and  he  called  the  Gentile  believers  the 
s[)iritual  Circumcision  :  "  In  Ciirist  ye  were  circumcised  with  a 
circumcision  not  made  by  hand  [outward  and  carnal,  like  tluit  of 
the  Jews],  with  the  circumcision  of  Christ."     (Col.  ii,  11.) 

Of  course,  too,  circumcision  was  never  obligatory  upon  the 
Gentiles ;  but  it  was,  for  some  years,  still  an  open  question  whether 
Gentile  Christians  could  come  uncircumcised  into  fellowship  with 
the  Jewish  Christians.  After  Paul  liad  begun  his  mission,  some 
Jewish  Christians,  still  zealots  for  the  Law,  were  for  enforcing 
circumcision  on  his  converts,  teaching  them,  "  Unless  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised after  the  rite  of  Moses,  ye  can  not  be  saved."  (Acts 
XV,  1.)  But  Paul  witlistood  them  ;  and,  at  last,  at  the  Council  at 
Jerusalem  (A.  D.  52),  with  the  help  of  Peter  and  James,  he  ob- 
tained a  decree  that,  "  We  trouble  not  those  who  from  among 
Gentiles  are  turning  to  God."  (Acts  xv,  19.)  It  was  a  notable 
triumph  for  Christianity,  and  saved  it  from  being  a  petty  sect  of 
Judaism  ;  *  but  it  was  also  the  wedge  that  finally  split  the  Church : 
that,  while  it  emancipated  the  Gentiles,  left  the  Jews  wedded  to 
the  usages  of  the  fathers,  against  Christ. 

Verse  11.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  the 
seal  of  the  justification  of  the  faith,  which  was  his,  in  his 
uncircumcision  ;  with  a  view  to  his  being  father  of  all  that 
have  faith,  w^hile  in  uncircumcision,  that  the  justification 
may  be  reckoned  to  them. 

As  we  have  seen,  Abraham's  justification  antedated  his  eircum- 


*"  Judaism  was  the  cradle  of  Christianity,  and  Judaism  very  nearly 
became  Its  grave.  From  so  serious  a  peril  one  man  saved  Christianity. 
The  career  of  no  other  man  has  ever  produced  such  lasting  effects  on  the 
world's  history  as  that  of  St.  Paul."—"  Paul  of  Tarsus,"  p.  1. 


ROMANS  IV,  12.  153 

cision  by  almost  twenty  years.  His  circumcision  was  the  authen- 
tication of  his  already  existing  faith.  It  conferred  nothing:  it 
only  confirmed  to  liis  own  consciousness,  and  to  the  recognition  of 
tlie  world,  the  fact  of  God's  previous  forgiveness  and  approval.  But 
the  point  which  Paul  makes  is  that  this  justification  came  to 
Abraham,  not  from  circumcision,  but  from  faith,  while  he  was  yet 
in  uncircumcision ;  and  therefore  could  not  be  credited  to  his 
obedience  to  tlie  rite  on  which  the  Jews  relied,  or  to  works  of  law, 
of  whicli  they  believed  circumcision  was  the  sign.  Instead  of  the 
word  "sign"  of  circumcision,  the  word  "rite"  would  better  express 
the  apostle's  sense. 

The  words  with  a  view  to  express,  not  Abraham's  purpose  in 
receiving  circumcision,  but  the  divine  aim  in  Abraham's  justifica- 
tion before  circumcision  ;  namely,  that  he  might  be  father,  first 
and  foremost,  of  Gentiles, — of  Gentiles  upon  the  sole  condition  of 
faith,  even  though  not  circumcised ;  and  that  the  justification 
which  was  reckoned  to  him,  an  uncircumcised  man,  may  be  I'eck- 
oned  to  them,  though  uncircumcised  men. 

Verse  12.  And  father  of  circumcision  to  the  men  who 
are  not  from  circumcision  only,  but  also  to  the  men  who 
miarch  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  our  father  Abraham, 
while  he  was  in  uncircumcision. 

The  word  circumcision  here,  without  the  article,  is  not  tlie 
concrete  substantive,  "  The  Circumcision,"  nor  yet  the  Mosaic  rite; 
but  rather  the  Jewish  Church  or  cult,  of  which  the  symbol  is 
circumcision,  and  of  which  Abraham  was  the  recognized  head 
and  father.  But  the  following  clauses  designate  Jews:  the  first 
clause  describing  Jews  who  are  sons  of  Abraham  by  birth  merely ; 
the  second  clause  describing  Jews  who  have  also  the  higher  title 
to  sonship,  the  faith  which  Abraham  had  in  his  days  of  uncircum- 
cision. The  words  our  father  are  spoken,  not  from  Paul's  position 
as  a  Jew  born,  but  from  his  standpoint  as  a  Christian  believer. 
He  counts  Abraham,  not  as  the  natural  father  of  the  Jews,  but  as 
the  spiritual  father  of  all  believers;  just  as  in  verse  16  he  says, 
"Abraham  is  father  of  us  all,  Jews  and  Gentiles."  And  thus  the 
apostle,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  excludes  from  the  roll  of  Abra- 
ham's real  Scriptural  family,  all  Jews  that  have  no  better  title  to 
sonship  than  carnal  descent,  and  circumcision  of  the  flesh;  and 
includes  in   this  large  spiritual  family  all  Gentiles,  who,  though 


154  EXPOSITION. 

uncirenmcispd,  have  sucli  faith  as  Abraham  the  uncircumcised 
liad  in  the  promiso  of  (lod.  And  so  l*aiil  says  to  tlie  Galatian 
Gentiles:  "  Know,  then,  that  they  who  are  of  faith,  tliese  are  sons 
of  Abraham;"  "And  if  ye  are  Christ's,  tlien  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  according  to  tlie  promise."     (Gal.  iii,  7,  29.) 

Verse  13.  For  not  through  law  was  the  promise  to 
Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  that  he  should  be  heir  of  the 
world,  but  through  justification  of  faith. 

The  word  seed  denotes  Abraham's  spiritual  posterity,  Christ, 
and  the  followers  of  Christ:  "  To  thy  seed, which  is  Christ;"  "And 
if  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."  (Gal.  iii,  16,  29.)  The  clause  that  he  should  be 
heir  of  the  world,  which  is  epexegetic  of  the  word  promise, 
may  be  taken,  grammatically,  as  appositive  to  that  word.  The 
promise  in  Genesis  reads,  "  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation, .  .  . 
and  in  thee  will  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  (Gal.  xii,  2.) 
This  last  clause  Paul  jjaraphrases:  "  He  will  be  heir  of  the  world." 
The  Greek  word  here  for  ivorld  has  no  article:  because,  like  the 
English  word  "Earth,"  it  has  become  almost  a  ju-oper  noun.  In 
Gal.  vi.  14,  it  is  used  once  without  the  article,  and  once  with  it: 
"  Through  whom  the  world  has  been  crucified  to  me,  and  I  to  the 
world."     Of  course,  the  English  word  here  takes  the  article. 

Verse  14.  For  if  they  that  are  from  law  are  heirs, 
the  faith  has  been  made  void,  and  the  promise  has  been 
annulled. 

The  expression  they  who  are  from  law  means  the  Jews  who 
are  adherents  to  the  system  of  law,  who  rely  on  works  of  law,  for 
justification.  The  article  with  the  word  faith  recalls  that  word 
as  used  in  verse  13.  Probably  the  concept  can  be  best  expressed 
by  ''the  system  of  faith,"  as  opposed  to  the  system  of  law.  The 
verb  has  been  made  void  or  has  been  voided  means  "  emptied 
of  its  value  ;''  and  is  the  same  word  as  is  found  in  First  Corinthians, 
"Lest  the  cross  of  Christ  be  made  of  no  effect."  (1  Cor.  i,  17.)  The 
thought  of  the  apostle  is  that  justification  and  heirship  come 
wholly  from  law,  or  wholly  from  faith:  the  two  schemes  can  not 
co-operate  ;  each  is  exclusive  of  the  other.  The  promise  was  that 
"  Tlie  seed  of  Abraham  should  be  heir  of  the  world.  In  Chrii<t  will 
all  the  families  of  the  world  be  blessed."     Christ  represents  the 


ROMANS  IV,  15.  15S 

system  of  faith  ;  but  if  they  who  are  from  law  inherit  the  promise, 
the  faith  has  been  voided,  and  the  promise  annulled ;  and  Christ 
has  no  place. 

Verse  15.  [But  they  -who  are  from  law  are  not  heirs] ; 
for  the  law  works  wrath ;  but  where  there  is  no  law,  neither 
is  there  transgression. 

The  explicative  conjunction  for  does  not  explain  verse  14,  and 
can  not  logically  connect  the  fifteenth  verse  to  that.  Evidently, 
we  have  here  another  instance  of  a  suppressed  member  in  the  line 
of  thought.  The  apostle  elsewhere  says:  "As  many  as  are  from 
works  of  law  are  under  a  curse;  for  it  has  been  written.  Cursed  is 
every  one  that  continues  not  in  all  the  precepts  in  the  book  of  the 
Law,  to  do  them"  (Gal.  iii,  10)  ;  which  is  a  condition  that  no  Jew 
attains  to.  In  the  light  of  the  quotation,  or  even  without  it,  from 
the  logical  connection  of  thought  in  our  text,  we  can  easily  supply 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  the  missing  number:  "  [But  the  men 
who  are  from  law  are  not  heirs]  ;  for  the  law  w^orks  wrath." 
The  word  law  here,  though  it  has  the  article,  denotes  not  the 
Law  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  but  law  universally.  The  word 
takes  the  article  because  it  refers  to  and  resumes  the  word  "law" 
in  the  fourteenth  verse. 

The  logical  connection  of  the  last  clause  in  this  verse  is  not 
at  first  sight  quite  clear.  Certainly  the  saying  is  not  intended  as 
the  statement  of  a  general  principle  of  government;  for,  while  the 
statement  is  admirable,  and  is  often  quoted,  as  a  legal  aphorism, 
it  does  not  come  as  such  into  the  apostle's  present  line  of  thought. 
The  saying  is  closely  linked  to  his  special  discussion.  A  brief  sup- 
ply sufhciently  expresses  the  connection  and  the  ineaning:  But 
[in  the  sphere  of  faith],  where  there  is  no  law,  neither  is 
there  transgression.  The  adversative  conjunction  but  i)uts  the 
second  clause  of  the  verse  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  first.  The  first 
clause  refers  to  "  the  men  who  are  from  law,"  and  describes  their 
condition:  "They  ai-e  under  the  curse  of  the  law."  The  second 
clause  refers  to  "the  men  who  are  of  faith,"  and  describes  their 
condition:  "  Christ  has  bought  them  off  from  the  curse  of  the 
law."  "  They  have  fled  for  refuge,  to  lay  hold  on  the  hope  set  be- 
fore them,  in  the  gospel."  "  Their  sins  are  blotted  out,"  and  are 
as  if  they  had  never  existed.  Against  them  there  is  "no  law;" 
and  God  does  not  "reckon  transgi-ession "  against  them. 


156  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  16.  On  account  of  this,  [justification]  comes 
from  faith,  that  it  may  be  according  to  grace ;  to  the  end 
that  the  promise  may  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ;  not  to  that 
from  the  Law  only,  but  also  to  that  from  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all. 

Tlie  word  justification,  wliich  is  tlie  matter  in  discussion, 
must  be  supplied  as  the  i)r()|)ei-  subject  of  tlie  verb  comes.  Tlie 
reference  in  the  Introductory  phrase,  on  account  of  this  thing, 
is  not  clear.  The  same  words  in  cluipter  v,  12,  iiave  gicatly  puz- 
zled the  critics;  and  perliaps  in  neither  instance  can  any  common 
agreement  as  to  the  logical  connection  be  reached.  Most  critics 
look  for  the  references  in  the  preceding  words  or  passages.  But 
the  word  this  thing  in  both  passages  probably  does  not  look 
backward  for  its  connection,  for  the  simple  reason  that  no  one  can 
tell  what  thing  is  meant.  It  would  rather  seem,  then,  that  the 
reference,  in  botli  instances,  is  not  retrosj)ective,  but  pro- 
spective. This  preposition,  on  account  of,  wliich  always  looks 
to  something  historically  past,  generally  also  points  to  some 
preceding  word.  But  it  may  point  to  some  word,  or  term, 
that  follows  in  the  sentence.  See  further  in  the  note  on  Rom. 
V,  12.  In  the  text  before  us,  the  reference  is  to  the  clause, 
that  it  may  be  according  to  grace;  that  is,  that  "  the  justi- 
iioition  may  be  a  gratnitij,  and  not  a  debt  due  for  works  done." 
And  so  the  verse  runs  logically  thus:  "Justification  comes  from 
fiiith,  on  account  of  this,  that  it  may  be  according  to  grace."  This 
was  the  antecedent  reason  in  the  divine  mind  why  the  inheritance 
was  made  dependent,  not  upon  works,  but  upon  faith;  because 
no  man  can  compass  the  first,  and  all  men  can  meet  the  gracious 
conditions  of  the  second.  And  so  the  text  says  that  God  made 
all  this  gracious  provision  expressly  to  the  end  that  the  promise 
should  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ;  not  to  the  seed  which  is,  from  the 
Law  only,  the  literal  Jews,  but  also  (which  is  now  the  salient 
point)  to  the  seed  which  is  from  the  faith  of  Abraham,  the  Gen- 
tiles. And  thus,  in  God's  plan,  Abraham  is  held  as  father  of  us 
all,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Ji-vvs. 

Verse  17.  (According  as  it  has  been  written.  Because 
father  of  many  nations  I  have  made  thee)  [Gen.  xvii,  5]  ; 
before  him  in  whom  he  had  faith,  God,  who  makes  the 
dead  to  live,  and  calls  the  things  not  in  being  as  though 
in  being. 


ROAfANS  IV.    18, 19-22.  157 

The  word  translated  nations  is  also  the  word  for  "  Gentiles." 
The  stress  of  the  word,  in  Paul's  application  of  the  passage,  is  on 
the  sense  "  Gentiles."  Unfortunately,  the  English  language  does 
not  give  us  a  word  of  this  double  compass.  The  first  clause  is 
parenthetic ;  and  the  next  word,  before,  connects  back  to  the  last 
clause  of  verse  16. 

The  quotation  is  from  the  promise  to  Abraham:  "For  the 
father  of  a  multitude  of  nations  have  I  made  thee."  (Gen.  xvii,5.) 
The  special  instance  of  Abraham's  faith  here  described  was  twenty 
years  after  the  great  culminating  act  of  faith  which  was  counted 
to  him  unto  justification.  (Gen.  xv,  6.)  When  Abraham  was 
ninety  and  nine  years  old,  and  Sarah  his  wife  was  ninety,  God  said 
to  him:  "I  will  give  thee  a  son  also  from  lier."  (Gen.  xvii,  16.) 
This  was  the  promise  which  Abraham  believed,  and  which  was 
fulfilled.  The  clause,  God  makes  the  dead  alive,  means  that 
God  quickened  the  deadened  body  of  Abraham,  and  the  deadness 
of  Sarali's  womb ;  and  the  clause,  calls  the  things  not  in  being 
as  though  in  being,  means  that  he  summoned  into  being  the  yet 
unbegotten  Isaac,  the  literal  seed,  and  the  multitude  of  nations, 
both  literal  and  spiritual,  that  were  to  be  the  promised  seed,  as 
declared  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  18.  "Who  against  hope,  upon  hope  had  faith, 
with  a  view  to  his  becoming  father  of  many  nations  [Gen- 
tiles], according  to  that  which  had  been  spoken,  Thus 
will  thy  seed  be. 

Perhaps  a  paraphrase  will  be  the  best  comment:  "  Abraham, 
contrary  to  all  human  expectation,  nevertheless,  on  the  basis  of 
his  newly-begotten  hope  of  offspring,  exercised  faith  in  God's 
promise,  to  the  end  that  he  became  father  of  countless  multi- 
tudes, of  Gentiles  as  well  as  of  Jews ;  in  fulfillment  of  the  promise 
spoken  to  him:  '  Look  toward  heaven,  and  count  the  stars,  if  thou 
be  able  to  number  them:  as  the  stars  of  the  heaven,  and  as  the 
sand  which  is  upon  the  seashore,  thus  will  thy  seed  be ;  and  in  thy 
seed  will  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.'  "  (Gen.  xv,  5; 
xxii,  17.) 

Verses  19-22.  And  not  having  been  weak  in  faith,  he 
considered  his  own  body,  now  deadened,  being  about  a 
hundred  years  old,  and  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb ; 
but  in  respect  to  the  promise  of  God  he  doubted  not  through 


158  EXPOSITION. 

unfaith  :  nay,  but  he  was  strengthened  by  his  faith,  having 
given  glory  to  God,  and  having  been  fully  assured  that, 
what  he  has  promised,  he  is  able  also  to  do.  Wherefore 
also  it  [faith]  was  reckoned  to  him  unto  justification. 

The  be.st  manuscripts,  and  the  critical  editions,  do  not  give 
the  usual  reading,  "  He  considered  not  his  own  body."  Though 
the  negative  gives  a  good  sense,  its  absence  gives  perhaps  a  better 
attestation  to  Abraham's  faith.  The  Greek  verb  is  intensive: 
"  He  took  full  note  of  his  decayed  powers,  and  yet  did  not  waver 
tiirough  unfaith,  because  of  that  fact."  The  verb  was  strength- 
ened refers  to  the  recovery  of  his  physical  vigor — "  he  was  invig- 
orated by  reason  of  his  faith."  It  is  the  same  sense  as  attaches 
to  the  noun  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Hebrews:  "By  faith  Sarah 
received  ;>0!t'fr  to  the  conception  of  seed."  (Heb.  xi,  11.)  Abra- 
ham was  nearly  a  hundred  years  old  and  Sarah  ninety,  at  the  date 
of  this  miracle  wrought  in  his  own  person,  and  in  tliat  of  liis  wife. 
"  He  gave  glory  to  God  "  for  the  new  strength  which  was  imparted 
to  him,  and  wliich  he  did  not  lose  again.  Thirty-seven  years  later 
(Gen.  xxiii,  1),  after  the  death  of  Sarah,  he  married  Keturah  (Gen. 
XXV,  1),  and  by  her  became  the  father  of  six  sons.* 

The  word  wherefore  in  the  twenty-second  verse,  looks  back 
to  Abraham's  whole  life  of  faith,  as  now  again  exemplified  on  this 
occasion  of  the  promise  of  Isaac:  and  the  verse  is  resumi)tive  of 
the  saying  that  we  have  already  had  in  the  ninth  verse:  "His 
faith  was  reckoned  to  him  unto  justification." 

Verses  23,  24.  But  it  was  not  written  on  account  of 
him  alone,  that  it  was  reckoned  to  him ;  nay,  but  also  on 
account  of  us,  to  whom  it  is  going  to  be  reckoned  ;  who  have 
faith  on  him  that  raised  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead. 

The  thought  is,  that  what  holds  good  of  Abraham  will  be  found 
to  hold  good  of  us,  his  spiritual  posterity.  That  Abraham's  faith 
was  reckoned  to  him  unto  justification,  apart  from  works,  was 
written  on  his  account,  as  the  Scripture  testimony  to  his  accept- 
ance before  God.  But  it  was  written  also  on  our  account,  as  the 
assurance  of  our  like  acceptance  with  God,  who  have  like  faith  in 
God  ;  and  whose  faith,  like  that  of  Abraham,  is  a-going  to  be  reck- 
oned to  us,  unto  justification,  apart  from  works. 


•  But  as  Keturah  was  only  an  Inferior  wife,  or  "concubine  "  (Gen.  ixv, 
6),  like  Hagar,  Abraham  may  have  married  her  while  Sarah  was  living. 


ROMANS  IV,  m.  159 

Yet  there  is  a  difference.  Abraham's  faith  in  God  was  a  spe- 
cific faitli  in  the  unfulfilled  Messianic  promise  of  seed.  Our  faith 
is  a  faith  in  God,  as  the  One  who  now  has  fulfilled  his  promise, 
and  has  raised  our  Lord  from  the  dead. 

Verse  25.  Who  are  delivered,  up  on  account  of  our 
trespasses,  and  -was  raised  on  account  of  his  having 
justified  us. 

The  thought  in  the  first  clause  he  was  delivered  up  is  more 
fully  expressed  by  Christ  himself,  "The  Son  of  man  is  a-going  to 
be  delivered  up  into  the  hands  of  men"  (Matt,  xvii,  22),  and  still 
more  specifically  in  the  words:  "The  chief  priests  .  .  .  bound 
Jesus,  and  delivered  him  up  to  Pilate  ;  .  .  .  and  Pilate  delivered 
him  up  to  be  crucified"  (Matt,  xxvii,  26). 

The  identity  of  the  preposition  and  of  the  construction  in  the 
two  clauses,  compels  us  to  an  identity  of  meaning  and  of  exegesis. 
This  preposition  5ta  "on  account  of"  with  the  accusative  case  of 
the  substantive,  is  always  relrospective ;  it  looks  back  to  some  thing 
or  some  act,  as  the  antecedent  reason  or  the  ground  of  the  state- 
ment in  the  sentence  ;  and  so  never  looks,  prospectively,  to  the  end 
to  be  attained.  It  always  means  on  account  of  something  past; 
never  "for  the  sake  of"  something  future.  The  first  clause  in 
our  text  is  plain.  Our  offenses  or  trespasses  were  the  antecedent 
causes  for  Christ's  vicarious  death.  "He  died  on  account  of  our 
offenses,  in  order  to  make  atonement  for  them."  All  agree  that 
this  is  the  meaning.  The  second  clause  is,  in  fact,  equally  plain  ; 
because  it  involves  the  same  grammatical  and  lexical  points.  But 
it  has  usually  received  a  different  explanation,  due  to  the  equiv- 
ocal, and  therefore  erroneous,  translation  of  the  preposition,  and 
of  the  substantive  "for  our  justification."  And  this  translation 
found  in  both  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised,  and  generally  in 
the  commentaries,  is  interpreted  as  meaning  that  "Christ  was 
raised  to  bring  about  our  justification."  But  this  can  not  be  the 
meaning  expressed  by  the  Greek  preposition ;  and  it  is  not  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  passage.  Paul  in  this  verse  cleai'ly  says 
that  Chi'ist  was  raised  from  among  dead  men,  not  with  a  view  to 
our  justification,  as  if  it  were  yet  future  ;  but  on  account  of  his 
having  already  accomplished  our  justification  by  his  sacrificial  death. 
His  atoning  work  was  complete  in  his  death  ;  and  his  resurrection 
simply  attested  this  fact.  The  resurrection  was  no  part  of  his 
expiative  work ;  but  simply  the  seal  which  God  set  to  his  accom- 


160  EXPOSITION. 

plished  work,  the  coronation  of  tlic  victor  over  doatli.  On  the 
cross,  at  the  point  to  die,  he  cried,  "  It  hus  been  completed."  By 
his  own  death  lie  had  conquered  death;-  and  now  "God  raised 
him  from  the  dead,"  because  "  he  could  not  be  held  [as  a  contin- 
uation of  the  penalty]  by  the  bonds  of  death."    (Acts  ii,  24.) 

The  substantive  Stxa/wo-tj  here  translated  his  having  justified 
us  is  found  only  here  and  in  chapter  v,  18.  It  is  a  verbal  deriv- 
ative, expressing,  like  other  words  of  a  similar  formation,  the 
action,  or  process,  indicated  by  the  verb,  rather  than  the  result. 
It  differs  from  the  word  SiKaioaui/rj,  usually  translated  "justifica- 
tion"— that  is,  either  the  scheme  of  acquittal  or  the  state  of 
accpiittal — as  being  rather  the  means  which  brings  us  to  that 
result.  And  the  literal  and  proper  translation  is  "  tlie  justifying  of 
us."  It  is  needless  to  remark  how  perfectly  this  accords  with  the 
translation  and  explanation  above,  of  the  preposition:  On  account 
of  his  having  justified  us. 

The  doctrine  here  taught  is  fundamental  to  the  Scripture 
exhibition  of  the  atonement.  It  is  clearly  expressed  in  this  pas- 
sage;  but  we  shall  see  it  more  fully  and  variously  stated  in  the 
sixth  chapter,  which  treats  of  the  vicarious,  or  substitutionary, 
character  of  Christ's  work.  That  chapter,  and,  indeed,  all  the 
gospel,  teaches  that  in  Christ's  death,  which  was  a  vicarious  death, 
we  all  shared  ;  and  that  from  the  instant  of  his  death,  the  saving 
power  of  his  work  became  potentially,  constructively,  really,  the 
impropriation  and  the  right  of  the  race.  By  his  death  all  men 
were  and  are  born  to  the  inheritance  of  the  promise  ;  and  "  in 
him  every  one  who  hath  faith  is  justified  from  all  things  from 
which  men  were  not  able  to  be  justified  by  the  Law  of  Moses." 
(Acts  xiii,  39.)  This  accomplished  work  was  the  ground  of  Christ's 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  of  our  resurrection. 

And  thus  Paul  concludes  this  long  and  convincing  discussion 
with  the  Jew,  in  regard  to  God's  plan  for  the  justification  of  men, 
— of  all  men,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  He  affirms  again  and 
again,  that  we  are  not  justified  by  works,  but  by  faith  in  the 
atonement  of  Christ ;  "  who  was  delivered  up  to  death  on  account 
of  our  sins,  and  was  raised  again  from  the  dead  on  account  of  hav- 
ing wrought  out  our  justification." 


*  So  the  old  moiiklsb  poem   "  3/ors  mortis  morti  mortem  morti  dedit' 
'The  Death  of  death  by  his  deiith  put  death  to  death." 


CHAPTEE    V. 


Verse  1.  Having  been  justified,  therefore,  from  faith,  we 
have  peace  towards  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

We  are  now  at  tlie  midway  point  of  the  dogmatic  part  of  this 
Epistle.  With  the  conclusion  reached  in  the  previous  chapter, 
Paul  ceases  his  polemic  against  the  Jew ;  and  for  the  next  four 
chapters  treats  more  distinctively  of  the  rightful  place  of  the 
Gentiles  in  the  gosi)el  scheme.  It  is  their  equality  with  the  Jews 
that  is  foremost  in  all  his  thought. 

Let  us  trace  the  line  of  thought  thus  far  followed.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Jews  held  that  they  were  justified  from  works;  and 
that,  as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  the  sole  subjects  of  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcision, they  were  the  only  people  included  in  the  provisions  of 
the  Divine  plan,  and  the  only  people  that  could  be  saved.  But  early 
in  the  epistle,  the  apostle  declared  that  "  The  gospel  is  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  to  every  man  that  has  faith,  to  Jew,  first,  and 
also  to  Greek."  (Rom.  i,  16.)  He  puts  both  Jews  and  Gentiles 
on  the  common  and  only  ground  of  justification,  that  of  faith, 
as  shown  in  the  next  words,  "  For  in  the  gospel  is  revealed  God's 
plan  of  justification,  as  being  from  faith."  (Rom.  i,  17.)  With 
Paul  the  fundamental  question  on  which  the  gospel  hangs  is.  Does 
God  justify  from  works?  or  does  he  justify  from  faith?  And  then 
springing  out  of  this  essential  and  primal  issue,  arises  before  the 
apostle  the  equally  essential,  but  even  more  pressing  question. 
Who  are  embraced  in  the  provisions  of  the  gospel?  "  Is  God  God 
of  Jews  only?     Is  he  not  God  of  Gentiles  also?"     (Rom.  iii,  28.) 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  two  questions,  we  have  seen 
in  the  previous  chapters  that  these  two  methods  of  justification, 
whether  from  works  or  from  faith,  are  both  conceivable,  both  rea- 
sonable, both  recognized  in  the  Scriptures,  at  least  speculatively, 
but  incompatible  with  each  other,  mutually  exclusive.  The  one, 
justification  from  works,  was  held  by  the  Jews;  the  other,  justifi- 
11  161 


1G2  EXPOSITION. 

cation  from  faith,  was  held  l>y  the  apostle,  in  the  behalf  of  the 
Gentiles.  Tiic  lirst  implies  that  men  can  do  what  (iod's  i)ei-fect 
law  commands,  and  so  can  earn  justification  and  eternal  life,  as 
their  reward.  Its  banner  carries  the  device  "  Do  this,  and  live  ;" 
that  is,  do  the  works  that  the  Law  requires,  and  thou  wilt  have 
life.  The  other  teaches  that  "  no  man  can  do  the  works  of  the 
Law;"  but  must  find  justification  in  God's  sight  in  some  other 
way;  namely,  from  faith  in  Christ,  "who  bought  us  off  from  the 
curse  of  the  Law,  having  become  a  curse  for  [instead  of]  us."  (Gal. 
iii,  13.)  This  is  the  gospel  plan  ;  and  its  motto  is,  "Have  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  wilt  be  saved."     (Acts  xvi,  3L) 

"With  regard  to  the  second  point,  the  Jews  hold  that  no  other 
people  than  themselves  could  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  God's 
covenant  with  Abraham,  except  by  the  door  of  circumcision;  and 
that  such  is  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  But  the  apostle  shows 
that,  contrariwise,  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  has  no  such 
sense — that  God,  from  the  first,  even  before  the  world  was,  had  no 
other  thought,  or  i)lan,  for  the  salvation  of  men,  than  justification 
from  faith — and  that  the  Gentile  world  herein  stood  on  a  level  with 
the  Jews,  and  that  the  only  precedence  of  the  Jews  over  the  Gen- 
tiles was  a  chronological  one,  in  having  been  called  earlier  to  ad- 
mission to  covenant  privileges.  This  view  he  expands  at  large, 
availing  himself  of  the  Jews'  favorite  illustration,  the  example  of 
Abraham,  who  was  not  justified  from  works,  but  was  justified  from 
faith,  while  he  was  yet  uncircumcised. 

Paul's  demonstration  of  his  proposition  is  conclusive  on  the 
two  subjects  of  debate  with  the  Jews.  The  only  means  of  justifi- 
cation from  sin  is  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  the  door  to 
it  is  open,  without  circumcision,  to  the  Gentiles  who,  like  Ai)ra- 
ham,  exercise  a  personal  faith  in  God,  who  raised  Christ  from  the 
dead.  Nay;  this  justification  already,  by  the  death  of  Christ, 
belongs  fjotentially,  even  without  the  conscious  act  of  faith,  to 
the  Gentiles. 

In  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  the  discussion  has  taken  on 
the  form  of  a  spirited  interlocutory  debate  between  a  representa- 
tive Jew  on  the  one  hand  and  the  ajjostle  on  the  other.  The  Jew 
is  introduced,  speaking  in  the  first  person,  and  putting  the  objec- 
tions as  held  by  his  people  on  the  controverted  jioints  in  terse, 
forcible  form  The  issues  are  ])lain  and  direct  ;  and  the  apostle 
meets  them  in  equally  direct  and  conclusivf  rei)ly.  In  the  end, 
the  well-foughten  field  is  his.     He  has  established  his  contention 


ROMANS  V,  1.  163 

that  the  gospel  plan  of  justification  from  faith  was  the  fii'st,  and 
is  the  only  method  by  which  man  may  stand  acquit  before  God  ; 
and  that  this  gospel  is  not  provincial  in  its  range,  but  cosmopolitan. 
The  Jew  is  silenced  on  these  issues ;  and  appears  only  incidentally 
again  as  a  si)eaker,  until  the  apostle  comes,  in  tlie  long  episode 
from  the  nintli  to  the  eleventh  chapters,  to  discuss  the  destiny  of 
the  Jewish  nation  and  Church. 

The  conclusion  reached  in  this  debate  the  apostle  now  assumes 
as  established  beyond  gainsaying;  no  further  argument  is  needed 
that  men  are  justified,  not  from  works  of  law%  but  from  faith  in 
Christ.  And  in  this  matter  he  has  the  Gentiles  chiefly  in  thought ; 
and  he  fully  identifies  himself  with  them  And  so,  with  this  as- 
surance, he  begins  the  fifth  chapter,  '"  Therefore,  having  been  jus- 
tified from  faith,  we  1  the  Gentiles]  have  peace  with  God." 

The  translation  here  given,  as  in  the  Authorized,  we  have 
peace,  follows  the  "  Received  Text"  of  the  Greek  verb,  exo/j-eu,  in 
the  indicative  mode,  expressive  of  a  realized  fact.  There  is  an- 
other reading  of  the  verb,  ex(^fj-ev,  in  the  subjunctive  mode,  followed 
by  the  Revised  (the  American  committee  dissenting),  "Let  us  have 
peace."  The  two  readings  differ  only  in  the  length  of  the  mode 
vowel ;  but  they  impose  upon  the  passage  widely  different  senses, 
and  widely  diffei-ent  exegeses.  The  subjunctive  mode,  "  Let  us 
have  peace,"  is  found  in  most  of  the  (few)  "  uncials" — that  is,  the 
oldest  manuscripts,  written  in  CAPITALS — in  most  of  the  Fathers, 
and  in  most  of  the  early  translations  ;  and  it  is  the  reading  adopted, 
of  course,  by  the  recent  critical  editors,  who  profess  to  abide  by 
the  oldest  diplomatic  evidence.  The  indicative  mode,  "  We  have 
peace,"  is  found  in  "  later  hands"  in  some  of  the  uncials,  in  most 
of  the  (many)  "cursives,"  and  in  some  of  the  Fathers.  The  ex- 
ternal evidence  favors  the  subjunctive  mode  ;  but  the  internal  evi- 
dence is  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  the  indicative  mode,  "  We  have 
peace."*  The  connection  makes  the  passage  didactic,  not  horta- 
tory. No  exegesis  based  on  the  reading,  "Let  us  have  peace,"  is 
satisfactory,  or  worthy  of   serious  consideration.     If   this  be  the 


*This  subjunctive  mode  probably  crept  Into  some  early  transcript 
(which  afterward  became  a  standard),  either  from  the  pious  Impulse  of 
the  copyist  to  turn  the  word  into  a  prayer;  or  from  oversight  on  the  part 
of  the  transcriber.  Such  changes  In  words  are  not  without  abundant  par- 
allels in  the  MSS-'elsewhere;  e.  g.,  1  Cor.  xv,  49.  (poplauixev,  "Let  us  bear  the 
Image;"  and  the  reverse  change^ln  Rom.  xiv,  19,  dtibKOfiev,  '■'■We  follow  the 
things  of  peace." 


1G4  EXPOSITION. 

reading,  it  can  only  be  an  exiiortation  to  scelc  peace  with  God,  as 
if  it  were  not  yet  ours.  It  is  only  those  who  are  not  already  in  a 
stiitt'  of  peace  that  say,  "  Let  us  have  peace."  But  the  clause. 
Having  been  justified,  involves  the  notion  of  present  peace  with 
Cn)d.  We  must  recollect  that  the  sentiment  is  from  the  stand- 
jioint  of  the  Gentiles.  They  have  come  into  a  new  and  gracious 
relation  with  CU)d.  They  have  been  justified,  and  experienced 
what  they  never  experienced  in  their  heathenism  and  alienation 
from  God.     They  are  at  peace  with  him. 

These  woi-ds,  "Let  us  have  peace,"  the  erroneous  reading  in 
Paul's  letter,  adopted  l)y  the  Revised,  are  famous  in  American 
history.  AVlien  General  Grant  was  nominated,  in  1868,  for  the 
Presidency  of  tlie  United  States,  the  Nortli  and  the  South,  though 
no  longer  at  war,  were  not  reconciled;  and  Grant  concluded  his 
letter  of  acceptance  with  the  conciliatory  words,  "Let  us  have 
peace."  The  words  of  General  Grant  were  appropriate  to  the 
condition  of  things  at  that  time  in  America.  And  they  thrilled  all 
hearts;  they  expressed  what  all  hearts  longed  for.  But  the  apos- 
tle's actual  words  were  very  different.  They  do  not  represent  the 
Gentiles  as  needing  reconciliation  with  God.  Rather  they  express 
their  new  and  satisfactory  experience:  "We  have  been  justified 
from  faith,  and  ice  have  peace  with  God."  This  peace  with  God  is 
just  what  justification  (pardon)  brings  to  the  Cliristian  con.-^cious- 
ness.  David  says,  "  Righteousness  [justification]  and  |)eace  liave 
kissed  each  other"  (Ps.  Ixxxv,  10)  ;  and  Isaiah  says,  "The  work 
of  righteousness  [justification]  is  peace,  and  the  effect  of  right- 
eousness is  quietness  and  confidence  forever"  (Isa.  xxxii,  17). 

Verse  2.  Through  whom  also,  we  have  had  the  intro- 
duction, by  faith,  into  this  grace  in  which  we  stand ;  and 
we  boast  upon  hope  of  the  glory  of  God. 

We  must  keep  in  mind  that  it  is  the  Gentiles  in  particular 
that  the  apostle  here  represents  as  speaking.  His  thought  is  on 
the  Gentiles,  not  on  the  Jews;  and  he  uses  the  pronoun  we  be- 
cause he  identifies  himself  with  them.  Yet  we  must  also  notice 
that  while  Paul  begins  this  long  discussion  (Chapters  v-viii)  with 
distinct  reference  to  the  Gentiles,  speaking  in  their  person ;  and 
while  this  special  reference  to  them  remains  the  substratum  of 
his  thought,  all  through  the  passage,  yet,  in  his  exposition  of  the 
gospel  scheme,  the  special  prominence  of  the  Gentiles  gradually 
fades  out  of  his  thought,  and  after  the  eleventh  verse  of  this  chap- 


ROMANS  V.   3-5.  165 

ter,  his  words  widen  out  until  they  become  general  enough  to 
embrace  all  men,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles.  But  in  the  eiglith 
chapter  we  shall  see  that  the  apostle  again  calls  the  Gentiles  dis- 
tinctively to  the  front. 

The  word  grace  is  the  collective  term  for  the  favor  of  God, 
•  including  pardon,  peace,  purity,  and  power.  The  indicative  mode 
in  this  verse,  in  both  the  verbs,  is  in  accord  with  the  indicative  in 
the  first  verse.  The  expression  glory  of  God  probably  means,  as 
in  Rom.  iii,  23,  "  the  praise  or  approval  of  God."  The  boasting  of 
the  Jew  is  in  his  own  works  and  merits  ;  the  boasting  of  the  Chris- 
tian is  in  the  undeserved  approval  of  God.  All  our  sufficiency  is 
from  him. 

Verses  3-5a.  But  not  only  [upon  that  hope  do  we  boast], 
nay,  but  we  also  boast  in  our  afflictions ;  knowing  that 
affliction  works  patience ;  but  the  patience  approval ;  but 
the  approval  hope ;   but  the  hope  shames  us  not. 

The  clause  in  brackets  is  evidently  to  be  supplied.  The  senti- 
ment of  these  verses  is  appropriate  to  the  man  who,  though  hope- 
ful, is  conscious  also  of  his  own  weakness.  Paul  elsewhere  says  of 
himself:  "With  regard  to  myself  I  will  not  boast,  except  in  my 
weaknesses."  (2  Cor.  xii,  5.)  And  of  the  weaknesses  and  of  the 
afflictions  that  were  his,  Paul  had  abundant  experience.  "  Who 
is  weak,  and  I  am  not  weak?"  "  Most  gladly  will  I  boast  in  my 
weaknesses  ;  for  when  I  am  weak,  then  I  am  strong."  It  is  with 
this  feeling  that  he  here  can  say  that  affliction  works  patience, 
and  patience  approval  [or  approvedness],  and  approval 
hope, — the  hope  of  eternal  salvation.  And  James  says:  "  Happy 
is  the  man  that  endures  trial ;  because  having  become  approved, 
he  will  receive  the  crown  of  life."  (James  i,  12.)  The  word  ap- 
proval may  perhaps  be  equally  well  rendered  by  the  word 
"test."  Patience  puts  our  character  to  test;  and  the  ability  to 
stand  the  test  confirms  our  hope  of  final  triumph,  and  this  hope 
does  not  disappoint  us. 

Verse  5h.  Because  the  love  of  God  has  been  poured 
out  in  our  hearts,  through  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was 
given  us. 

The  verse  expresses  the  basis  of  our  confidence  in  God. 
Through  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  grateful  sense  of  his  love  to  us  has 
been  diffused  in  our  hearts.     We  realize  that  though  we  are  Gen- 


166  EXJ'OSITJOX. 

tiles  he  loves  us  and  counts  us  his  children.  The  result  is,  that 
"We  love  him;  because  he  first  loved  us"  (1  John  iv,  19);  and 
"We  are  i)ersuaded  that  notliiiig  [not  even  the  hostility  of  the 
Jews]  will  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  in  Christ 
Jesus,  our  Lord"  (Kom.  viii,  39). 

From  the  absence  of  the  article  with  the  words  Holy  Spirit, 
.some  infer  that  the  word  spirit  ])robably  does  not  mean  the  Tliird 
Person  in  the  Trinity,  in  liis  personality;  but  an  endowment,  or 
gift,  given  us  from  the  Divine  Spirit.  Dr.  Vaughan  aptly  illus- 
trates this  difference  by  explaining  the  oft-misunderstood  pas- 
sage in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles:  "Did  ye  receive  a  holy  spirit 
[an  impartation  of  supernatural  gifts]  wlien  ye  exercised  faith?" 
"No;  we  did  not  even  hear  wliether  there  is  a  holy  spirit"  [a 
miraculous  endowment  i)romised  to  the  believer]  (John  vii,  39). 
.  .  .  "Then  Paul  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  The  Holy  Spirit 
came  upon  them"  (Acts  xix,  2).  This  is  very  ingenious;  and  a 
similar  difficulty  in  Acts  viii,  15,  is  easily  solved  in  the  same  way. 

But  it  makes  at  least  as  good  sense  to  interpret  the  word  here 
as  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  promised  by  Christ  as  the  "Guide 
into  all  the  [needed]  truth;"  and  which,  after  his  resurrection, 
was  poured  out  in  all  its  fullness  on  the  Church.  The  absence  of 
the  article  can  be  accounted  for,  on  the  use  of  the  word  Holy 
Spirit  as  a  quasi  proper  name. 

Verse  6.  For  while  we  w^ere  yet  weak,  in  due  season 
Christ  died  for  ungodly  men. 

The  conjunction  for  connects  this  verse  back  to  the  words 
love  of  God;  and  thus  the  saying  here  is  confirmatory  of  the 
saying  in  verse  5.  The  word  weak  expresses  both  the  moral  and 
the  legal  inability  to  help  ourselves.  The  phrase  in  due  season 
means  "  in  the  fullness  of  the  time,"  the  time  ajjpointed  of  God, 
announced  of  old  by  the  pro])hets,  "  when  the  people  were  in  ex- 
])ectation."  Wlien  Christ  died,  the  world  was  ripe  for  his  gospel ; 
all  ethnic  religions  and  all  ethical  philosophies  were  actual,  if 
not  recognized,  failures. 

The  preposition  for,  virip,  used  in  this  sentence,  "  He  died  for 
ungodly  men,"  and  found  four  times  in  these  three  verses,  usually 
ni(>ans  in  behalf  of,  but  often,  as  here,  takes  the  same  sense  as  the 
preposition  avrl,  "  in  place  of."  The  preposition  for  in  this  verse 
not  only  means  "  in  our  place,"  which  is  all  that  avrl  could  ex- 
press, but  connotes  also  Christ's  compassion  in  this  substitution  of 


RODMANS  V,  6.  167 

himself  "in  our  behalf."  Christ's  death  was  not  only  in  our 
behalf,  but  it  was  in  our  place  ;  that  is,  it  was  not  only  sacrificial 
and  redemptive,  but  it  was  vicarious  and  substitutionary.  The 
sense  here,  "in  our  place,"  is  absolute,  unequivocal.  This  point 
is  so  fundamental  in  certain  passages  in  the  Bible  that  I  take  a 
large  space  to  put  it  beyond  dispute,  if  not  beyond  cavil.  Bishop 
Colenso,  in  his  comment  on  this  verse,  taking  the  opposite  posi- 
tion, says:  "  Once  for  all,  let  it  be  stated  distinctly,  there  is  not  a 
single  passage  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  which  supports 
the  dogma  of  modern  theology  that  our  Lord  died  for  our  sins,  in 
the  sense  of  dying  instead  of  us,  dying  iii  our  place,  or  dying  so  as  to 
bear  the  penalty  of  our  sins.  It  is  often  said  that  he  died  for  ?ts,  he 
died  for  our  sins  ;  but  the  Greek  preposition  vivip  here  rendered  by 
'for,'  never,  in  any  single  instance,  means  '  in  our  stead,'  but  'on 
our  behalf,'  as  in  this  passage." 

So  far.  Bishop  Colenso  ;  though  why  he  should  say  "  the  dogma 
of  modern  theology,"  passes  all  understanding.     Christ's  substitu- 
tionary death  was  the  only  form  of  dogma  in  the  first  ages.     But 
Colenso's  Greek  is  as  much  at  fault  as  his  theology,  or  his  creed. 
He  has   spoken   without   the  book.    There    is   extant   in   classic 
Greek  a  famous  mythological  drama  by  Euripides,  tlie  "Alcestis," 
(B.  C.  438).     The  motive  of  this  drama  is  the  wifely  devotion  and 
self-sacrifice  of  Queen  Alcestis  in  dying  in  place  of  her  husband, 
Admetus.     The  king  had  obtained  from  the  Fates  the  gift  that 
when  his  time  to  die  came  he  might  have  a  double  length  of  life, 
if  he  could  find  a  voluntary  substitute.     Of  all  his  friends,  Alcestis 
wife-like,  is  the  only  one  who  consents  to  die  in  his  stead.    Now,  in 
this  drama  Euripides  uses  several  prepositions,  in  connection  with 
the  verb  "to  die,"  in  this  sense  of  "m  stead  of,"—7rp6  fourteen 
times,  avTl  eleven  times,  and  (which  is  the  salient  point,  now)  virkp 
five  tim€s,  as  follows: 
Verse  155.     How  could  a  wife  more  honor  her  husband  than 
in  being  willing  to  die  for  [in  place  of]  him? 
284.     Though  it  is  in  my  power  not  to  die,  I  die  for  thee. 
682.     1  am  not  under  obligation  to  die  for  thee. 
690.    Do  not  thou  rfiV /or  me. 
700.     Thou  wilt  persuade  thy  wife  to  die  for  thee. 
Other  instances,  equally  explicit,  from  the  classics  could  be 
quoted.    In  the  New  Testament  this  sense  of  the  word  is  often 
required  by  the  connection.     For  example: 

"  If  One  died  for  all,  then  all  died."     (2  Cor.  v.  14.) 


108  EXPOSITION. 

"  We  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  ye  reconcilod  to  God." 
(2  Cor.  V,  21.) 

"  Him  wlio  knew  no  sin  he  made  sin  [sinful]  for  us."  (2  Cor. 
V.  21.) 

"  I  keep  Onesimus  with  myself,  that  in  thy  stead  he  may  min- 
ister to  me."     (Philem.  13.) 

And  we  may  surely  cite  our  present  text,  and  many  more,  for 
this  sense  and  dogma  of  substitution  of  Christ  for  us. 

Verse  7.  For  scarcely  for  a  just  man  will  one  die ;  for, 
for  the  good  man  perhaps  one  eveil  dares  to  die. 

The  nice  dependencies  of  the  conjunction  for  in  each  of  the 
two  clauses  should.be  noticed.  The  first  refers  to  the  word  "  un- 
godly "  in  the  sixth  verse  ;  and  throws  stress  upon  that  word,  and 
upon  the  word  just :  "  He  died  [how  strange  the  self-sacrifice  !]  for 
unfjodly  men  ;  for  scarcely  even  for  ajust  man  will  one  die  \"  The 
conjunction  in  the  second  clause  refers  to  the  adverb  scarcely, 
and  modifies  the  concession  made  by  this  adverb.  This  modifying 
clause  is  logically  best  read  as  parenthetical. 

The  words  just  and  good  are  in  sharp  contrast.  Both  words 
describe  natural  dispositions,  not  qualities  that  come  from  grace ; 
and  they  are  far  from  being  synonymous.  The  word  "  righteous" 
in  the  Authorized  and  Revised,  instead  of  "just,"  misses,  as 
usual,  the  whole  point  of  the  verse.  By  a  ''just  man"  we  describe 
one  who  meets  his  obligations ;  who  keeps  within  the  letter  of  the 
law,  but  mayhap  has  no  other  recommendation.  He  may  pay  his 
debts  ;  yet  exact  from  others  the  uttermost  farthing.  People  may 
respect  him,  yet  not  love  him;  may  perhaps  even  hate  him.  He 
may  be  "just;"  yet  "scarcely  would  one  die  for  him."  On  the 
other  hand,  "the  good  man"  (the  article  singles  him  out  as  the 
ideal  character)  is  one  who  is  full  of  the  milk  of  human  kindness, 
ItenevoU-nt  and  beneficent.  Such  a  man  has  friends:  for  such  a 
man  perhaps  one  even  ventures  to  die.  Shakespeare's  Siiylock 
and  Antonio  are  the  typical  representatives.  Shylock  is  a  "  just" 
man  ;  no  one  charges  him  with  dishonesty  or  fraud  ;  yet  everybody 
execrates  him.  He  is  "  incapable  of  pity,  void  of  every  dram  of 
mercy  ;"  but  he  keeps  within  the  pale  of  the  law ;  and  nobody  can 
catch  him  on  the  hip.  "He  stands  for  justice;  he  will  have  his 
pound  of  flesh." 

"  AVhat  judgment  shall  I  dread,  doing  no  wrong? 
Speak  not  against  my  bond:  I'll  have  my  bond." 


ROMANS  V.    S,  9.  169 

Antonio  is  "the  good  man"  of  the  drama.  He  is  no  more 
"just"  than  Shylock ;  but  he  is  merciful,  pitiful,  self-sacrificing. 
Everybody  loves  him;  many  a  man  would  die  for  him.  Bassanio 
says: 

"  Shylock  shall  have  my  flesh,  blood,  bones,  and  all, 
Ere  thou  shalt  lose  for  me  one  drop  of  blood." 

Verse  8.  But  God  confirms  his  own  love  towards  us, 
in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinful,  Christ  died  for  us. 

The  leading  verb  here  does  not  mean  commends,  that  is, 
recommends,  presents  for  our  approval ;  but  demonstrates, 
"proves."  The  word  "commends"  (as  in  the  Authorized  and  Re- 
vised), quite  certainly  expresses  the  wrong  concept.  The  Greek 
word  here  translated  sinful  is  substantive  or  adjective,  according 
to  the  proprieties  of  the  connection.  I  here  prefer  the  word  sin- 
ful to  "sinners,"  because  the  word  points  rather  to  our  inward 
character,  than  to  our  outward  life  and  actions.  Similarly  in  the 
nineteenth  verse  of  this  chapter,  the  substantive  "sinners"  is  not 
an  appropriate  translation  in  contrast  with  the  adjective  "just;" 
and  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  holds  in  this  verse. 

Instances  of  men  deliberately  dying  instead  of  others  are  rare  ; 
yet  history  records  a  few,  all  of  them  of  friends  dying  for  friends. 
The  classic  story  of  Damon  and  Phintias  (Cicero,  De  Officiis,  III 
x,45),  has  become  the  world's  proverbial  instance,  as  if  it  were 
the  solitary  instance.  Yet  Christian  annals  can  give  us  many. 
But  God  proves  his  love  for  us,  in  that  Christ  died  for  men  who 
were  not  lovable  in  themselves,  and  did  not  love  him,— he  died  for 
us  when  we  were  sinful,  and  hostile. 

Verse  9.  Much,  rather,  then,  having  now  been  justified 
in  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  through  him  from  the  wrath. 

It  is  the  argument  from  the  greater  to  the  less.  He  who  gave 
his  Son  to  die  for  us  though  we  were  sinful  and  enemies,  to  save 
us  from  our  sins,  will  much  rather,  now  that  we  have  been  justi- 
fied, and  become  his  friends,  save  us  from  the  wrath  to  come. 
The  same  argument,  from  the  greater  to  the  less,  is  found  in  the 
eighth  chapter:  "  He  who  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  delivered 
him  up  to  death,  for  [in  place  of]  us  all,  how  will  he  not  also  with 
him  grant  us  all  things?"  (Rom.  viii,  32.)  Surely  God,  having 
given  us  so  much,  will  not  refuse  aught  else  to  make  his  work 
complete. 


170  EXPOSITION. 

Tho  expression  in  his  blood  must  not  be  pressed  too  closely. 
"We  have  already  seen  (Koni.  iii,  L'5)  tliat  nothing  turns  upon  the 
fact  tliat  Christ's  "blood"  was  shed;  but  all  turns  on  the  vital 
fact  that  he  difd  in  our  behalf  and  in  <jur  place.  "  Blood"  is  the 
synonym  of  "death,"  which  is  the  word  used  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  10.  For  if,  being  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  through  the  death  of  his  Son,  much,  rather,  having 
been  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  in  his  life. 

The  wonl  enemies  must  be  taken  always  as  aclv-e  in  significa- 
tion,— enemies,  hostile,  to  God,  not  the  object  of  his  enmity. 
And  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  constant  sense  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, of  the  word  reconcile,  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God, 
")  never  of  God  to  man.  Such  is  the  apostle's  explicit  teaching  else- 
■where,  as  well  as  here:  "God  reconciled  us  to  himself  through 
Christ ;  he  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  himself." 
(2  Cor.  v,  18.)  "God  is  love."  This  is  his  essential  chai-acter; 
and  it  is  in  conformity  with  this  revelation  of  himself  that  the 
Bible  never  speai<s  of  God's  being  our  enemy,  and  of  his  being 
reconciled  to  us;  but  always  of  our  being  reconciled  to  him.  Yet 
the  whole  tenor  and  the  express  words  of  Scripture  teach  that  sin 
has  clianged  the  administrative  relations  of  God  to  men  ;  and  that 
as  a  ruler  he  is  angry  with  the  wicked.  "  We  are  consumed  in 
thine  anger,  and  in  thy  wrath  are  we  troubled."  (Ps.  xc,  7.) 
These  words,  "anger"  and  "wrath,"  express,  no  doubt,  very  real 
things;  but  all  this  disappears  when  man  "has  received  the  rec- 
onciliation through  Christ,"  and  turns  to  God.  "  In  that  day  thou 
shalt  bay,  Though  thou  wast  angry  with  me,  thine  anger  is  turned 
away,  and  tliou  comfortest  me."  (Isa.  xii,  1.)  And  it  is  in  this 
light  that  we  can  in  popular  i)hraseology  say  (though  the  Scripture 
does  not  verbally  warrant  it)  tliat  "6'orf  is  reconciled:" 

"My  God  is  reconciled, 

His  pardoning  voice  I  hear  ; 
He  owns  me  for  his  child, 

I  can  no  longer  fear." — Charles  Wesley. 

The  phrase  in  his  life  does  not  mean  in  liis  life  as  an  example ; 
but  tiiat  we  share  in  liis  resurrection  life,  in  which  "all  power  lias 
been  given  him."  In  his  death  lie  has  redeemed  our  life  from  the 
grave:  "that  we  may  know  tlie  power  of  his  resurrection"  (Phil, 
iii,  10)  ;   "that  the  life  of  Jesus  may  be  manifested  in  our  body  " 


ROMANS  V.    11,  12.  171 

(2  Cor.  iv,  10).     It  is  the  promise  of  Christ:   "Because  I  live,  ye 
also  will  live."     (John  xiv,  19.) 

Verse  11.  But  not  only  [were  we  reconciled]  ;  nay,  but 
we  also  boast  in  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
through  w^hom,  now,  we  received  the  reconciliation. 

The  phrase,  But  not  only,  is  an  elliptical  formula  found  four 
times  in  this  Epistle  (v,  3;  v,  11;  viii,  23;  ix,  10)  and  elsewhere 
in  Paul's  writings.  The  Authorized  vaguely  supplies  "so."  A 
better  word  would  have  been  the  general  demonstrative  pronoun 
"  that,"  which  is  often  similarly  used  in  English;  but  the  proper 
specific  supply  must  be  determined  for  each  passage  by  the  con- 
nections. Here  the  supply,  we  were  reconciled,  is  derived  from 
the  previous  verse.  The  thought  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  this: 
"  Not  only  were  we  reconciled  to  God  (which  is  but  a  neutral  or 
intermediate  stage,  in  which  we  are  no  longer  hostile  to  God),  nay, 
but  we  are  lifted  to  the  higher  level  where  we  make  our  boast  in 
God."  When  the  apostle  says,  we  boast  in  God,  his  thought  is 
that  of  the  psalmist:  "In  God  we  boast  all  the  day  long."  (Ps. 
xliv,  8.)  Now,  the  Hebrew  word  here  is  the  verb  from  which  comes 
the  Hebrew  shout  of  triumph  in  the  Lord,  "  Hallelujah,"  Praise 
ye  Jehovah !  To  boast  in  God  is  to  shout  unto  God  with  the  voice 
of  triumph. 

Through  whom  now  we  received  the  reconciliation. 
Such  is  Paul's  statement;  not  ''have  received,"  as  in  the  English 
translations.  The  aorist  tense  carries  us  back  in  concept  to  the 
one  great  historical  transaction  by  which  Christ  wrought  and 
brought  redemption  to  the  entire  race.  The  word  now  expresses 
our  present  consciousness  of  this  blessing  through  Christ. 

Verse  12.  On  this  account,  just  as  through  one  man 
the  sin  came  into  the  world,  and  through  the  sin  the  death  ; 
even  so  the  death  came  throughout,  unto  all  men,  for  that 
all  sinned. 

This  famous  passage,  from  the  twelfth  to  the  twenty-first 
verse,  is  pregnant  with  matter,  and  is,  perhaps,  the  most 
studied  by  critics  of  all  Paul's  writing,  both  on  account  of 
its  intrinsic  difficulties  and  on  account  of  its  dogmatic  impor- 
tance. The  grammatical  structure  and  the  logical  connection 
are  not  clear;  and  the  internal  sense  and  exegesis  are  not 
easy.     The   conclusions  that  I  have  reached   are  not  always  in- 


172  EXPOSITION. 

disputable  to  my  own  mind  ;  but,  unablo  to  accept,  or  even  to 
imdorsland,  sojne  of  tlio  views  of  others,  I  venture,  with  diffidence, 
to  present,  as  the  result  of  much  study  and  reflection,  some  of  the 
conclusions,  which  seem  to  me  the  most  reasonable,  if  not  entirely 
satisfactory. 

1.  The  first  dilliculty  is  in  the  first  words,  On  this  account. 
The  phrase  in  this  instance  is  usually  explained  as  an  illative  con- 
junction, "  therefore  ;"  which  is  assumed  to  connect  back  to  some- 
thing preceding,  of  which  premise,  accordingly,  the  following  verse 
expresses  the  inference,  or  result.  Yet  there  is  no  agreement 
among  the  critics  as  to  the  particular  premise  refei-red  to.  Some 
go  back  only  to  verse  11;  others  go  further  back,  to  the  entire 
pai'agraph  in  verses  1-11 ;  while  yet  others  find  the  premise  in  the 
entire  discussion  from  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle.  But  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  any  one  of  those  references  can  be  maintained. 
The  passage  following  does  not  follow,  apparently,  as  a  logical 
inference,  or  conclusion,  from  anything  that  has  gone  before.  The 
apostle  has  not  as  yet  made  any  allusion  even,  to  Adam,  or  his  sin, 
or  to  entailed  corruption  and  death  ;  and  now  to  introduce  this 
discussion  of  Adam's  sin  and  its  effects,  by  the  word  "  therefore," 
seems  to  be  as  illogical  as  it  is  abrupt. 

AVhat  then  is  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  phrase  on 
account  of  this  thing?  It  can  hardly  be  taken  as  an  illative 
conjunction,  carrying  the  thought  back  to  some  (though  no  one 
knows  what)  antecedent.  On  the  contrary,  the  words  constitute 
a  causal  conjunction,  and  the  reference  is  not  backwards,  but  for- 
wards. This  proleptic  reference  is  very  frequent,  and,  grammatic- 
ally, can  occasion  no  difficulty.*  The  word  points  onward  to  the 
last  clause  in.  the  verse,  and  marks  out,  in  advance,  the  reason  of 
death's  going  throughout  to  all  men,  namely,  because  all 
sinned.  And  the  verse  arranged  in  the  order  of  its  logical  se- 
quence reads  thus:  "As  through  one  man  the  sin  came  into  the 
world,  and  through  the  sin  the  death,  even  so  the  death  came 
throughout  unto  all  men,  on  account  of  this  fact,  namely,  that 
all  sinned." 


*  Of.    Milton's  sentence: 

"  But  that  thou  shouldst  my  flrmness  therefore  doubt 
To  God  or  tliee,  because  we  have  a  foe 
May  tempt  It,  I  expected  not  to  hear."— Par.  Lost,  IX,  279. 

See  the  note  on  Rom.v,  Ifi;  and  compare  .John  vlll,  17;  x,  17;  xll,  18; 
1  Thess.  11, 13;    1  Tim.  1,  10;    2  Cor.xlll,  10;    und  many  others.    Also  Rom. 

IX,  17.     e'j  TOVTO. 


RO^fANS  V,  12.  173 

The  conjunctive  phrase  ^<t>  tS  in  the  last  clause  can  be  translated 
"on  the  ground  that,"  or,  more  briefly,  "  for  that,"  "that,"  or 
"  because."  The  word  "  that"  best  suits  the  connection  here ;  the 
word  "  because"  is  best  in  the  only  other  instance:  ''Because  we 
do  not  will  to  put  off  our  earthly  house."     (2  Cor.  v,  4.) 

If  this  explanation  of  tlie  initial  words  on  this  account  is 
correct,  it  follows,  first,  that  the  verse  before  us  is  not  an  inference 
or  conclusion  from  something  that  has  preceded;  and,  secondly, 
that  the  paragraph  is  independent  of  all  that  has  gone  before,  and 
constitutes,  in  fact,  a  fresh  departure  in  the  general  discussion  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  And  as  an  independent 
paragraph,  it  has  no  conjunction  to  connect  it  back  (as  is  usual  in 
the  New  Testament)  with  the  previous  discussion.  The  ninth 
chapter,  also,  begins  with  a  similar  paragraph,  independent  of  the 
previous  matter,  and  without  a  conjunction. 

2.  The  logical  structure  of  this  sentence  is  usually  assumed  to 
be  incomplete.  Where  the  translation  adopted  above  gives  even 
so,  the  Authorized  and  Revised  read  ''and  so."  The  Authorized 
makes  the  whole  verse  a  protasis  (or  first  member  of  a  complex 
sentence),  to  which,  however,  there  is  no  formal  apodosis  (or 
answering  member  of  the  sentence).  Some  exegetes  count  verses 
13-17  as  a  parenthesis,  and  find  the  apodosis  in  verse  18;  but  that 

verse  is  complete  in  itself,  having  both  a  protasis  ["as "]  and 

an  apodosis  ["so "]  of  its  own;  which  is  a  fatal  grammatical 

difficulty ;  and,  besides,  there  is  a  yet  more  serious  logical  diffi- 
culty, that  the  apodosis  thus  found  does  not  answer  to  the  protasis 
in  verse  12.  Others  abandon  the  search  for  an  apodosis,  and  re- 
mand the  sentence  to  the  already  long  list  in  which  Paul,  who 
dictated  his  letters,  has  left  us  a  defective  construction ;  and  they 
add  that  the  apostle's  appropriate,  and  apparently  intended,  apod- 
osis would  have  been,  "so  also  through  One  man,  Jesus  Christ, 
the  justification  came  in,  and  through  this  justification,  life."  Un- 
doubtedly, on  the  supposition  that  the  twelfth  verse  is  incomplete, 
and  that  it  institutes  a  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ,  this 
would  be  an  appropriate  supply.  But  the  twelfth  verse  does  nut 
institute  a  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ ;  it  describes  only 
how  the  sin  and  death  of  one  man,  the  first  transgressor,  culmi- 
nated in  the  sin  and  death  of  all  men,  the  victims  of  an  ill  heredity. 
And  it  is  anticipating  the  apostle's  discussion  to  bring  in  thus 
early,  in  the  paragraph,  the  famous  parallel,  or  rather  the  antith- 
esis, between  Adam  and  Christ.  This  antithetical  parallel  comes 
in  first,  after  verse  14 ;  and  were  it  not  for  the  later  addition,  no 


174  JLXI'OSITION. 

reader  of  verses  12-14  would  have  imagined  that  I'aul  liud  any  par- 
alh'l  between  Adam  and  Christ  in  his  mind,  as  he  certainly  has  ridt 
in  his  text. 

But  in  fact  the  verse  is  not  incomplete,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  translators  and  critics  should  miss  tiie  plain  construction. 
The  Greek  text  of  the  twelfth  verse  yields  in  itself  a  full  and  sat- 
isfactory grammatical  and  logical  construction,  with  both  a  pro- 
tasis and  an  apodosis.  A  substitution  in  the  old  translations  of 
the  adverb  "even"  for  the  conjunction  "and"  (both  of  which 
meanings  of  the  word  Kal  are  very  frequent),  makes  the  English 
sentence  complete  in  itself,  and  corresponding  exactly  with  the 
Greek  sentence.  The  sentence  thus  changed  gives  the  apostle's 
exact  meaning.  The  sole  alleged  objection  to  it  is  not  on  the  score 
of  the  grammar  of  the  sentence  (which  is  conceded  by  all"),  but 
on  Meyer's  mistaken  interpretation,— that  "  this  change  is  at  vari- 
ance with  the  parallel  between  Adam  and  Clirist,  which  rules  the 
whole  section."  It  is  usually  safe  to  agree  with  Meyer  on  any  ques- 
tion of  construction ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  the  parallel  between 
Adam  and  Christ  does  not  begin  with  this  verse,  and  Meyer's  ob- 
jection falls  away  with  the  correct  exegesis  of  the  twelfth  verse  as 
above. 

The  contrasted  words  in  the  twelfth  verse  are  clearly  one  and 
all^ — "As  through  one  man  came  sin  and  death,  even  so  to  all  men 
came  sin  and  death."  These  words  give  us  the  logical  clue  to  the 
whole  paragraph,  from  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  In 
the  first  eleven  verses  of  the  chapter,  the  apostle  has  discussed  the 
character  of  Christ's  work:  it  brings  reconciliation  and  peace  with 
God.  This  suggests  the  correlate  question  of  the  extent  of  Christ's 
redemptive  work.  Paul  holds  that  it  is  co-extensive  with  the  reach 
and  ruin  of  sin :  all  men  "  sinned"  and  died  ;  the  work  of  restora- 
tion must  be  equally  ample  in  its  scope:  "Where  sin  abounded 
grace  superabounded."  This  is  the  fundamental  fact  in  the  gospel 
of  Christ;  and  it  is  the  fundamental  thought  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  And  the  contrast  which  the  apostle  now  institutes  be- 
tween the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  and  the  consequences  of 
Christ's  justification  of  man  is  in  the  direct  line  of  his  main  prop- 
osition. 

There  are  several  words  in  this  verse  that  need  special  study — 
sin,  sinned,  death. 


*8ee  Instances  In  Thucydldes  (quoted  Bk.  Ill,  83,  Glnn's  Edit.,  p.  66). 


ROMANS  V,  12.  175 

1.  "  Sin."  In  the  New  Testament  there  are  many  words  ex- 
pressing man's  non-conformity  with  God's  law.  Of  these  four  are 
found  in  tliis  paragraph,  easy  distinguishable  in  definition:  aiMprla, 
"sin;"  irapd^affis,  "transgression;"  ■wapa.wTU)iJLa,  "fall;"  TrapaKorj, 
"disobedience."  The  first  finds  its  si)here  in  man's  inward  na- 
ture, and  is  subjective  ;  the  other  three  find  their  sphere  in  man's 
outward  conduct,  and  are  objective.  Sin  is  a  corruption  of  the 
nature  of  man,  a  moral  degeneracy,  a  falling  short  of  God's  ap- 
proval. (Rom.  iii,  23.)  "  Sin  is  disconformity  with  law."  This  is 
John's  definition.  (1  John  iii,  4.)  This  is  the  first  meaning  of  the 
word,  as  in  our  text,  as  an  abstract  term.  As  such  it  is  always  in 
the  singular  number.  But  the  word  "sin"  is  often  a  concrete 
noun,  and  (like  the  other  three  words  named  above)  expresses  a 
transgression  of  law,  an  overt,  voluntary  act.  In  this  sense  the 
word  is  sometimes  singular,  but  is  also  many  times  in  the  plural 
number.  The  two  senses  can  usually  be  recognized  by  the  con- 
nection ;  and  are  carefully  discriminated  by  John :  "  If  we  say  that 
we  have  no  sin  (sinfulness,  corruption  of  nature),  we  deceive  our- 
selves, and  the  truth  (the  true  doctrine  on  this  point)  is  not  in  us: 
if  we  confess  our  sins  (transgressions,  overt  acts),  he  is  faithful 
and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unright- 
eousness." (1  John  i,  8,  9.)  Sin  implies  a  proclivity  to  evil — a 
proclivity  which  may  result,  and  with  all  adults  does  result,  in 
actual,  overt  transgression.  But  this  innate  degeneration,  this 
abnormalcy  in  man's  moral  faculties,  does  not  involve  a  destruc- 
tion, or  a  change  in  the  nature  of  these  faculties.  It  is  only 
figuratively  that  we  speak  of  man's  being  "dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins."  Man  still  has  his  original  constitution:  he  is  a  moral  agent, 
rational,  with  convictions  of  the  good,  with  impulses  to  the  right  ; 
and  he  is  free. 

Sin  in  this  sense  of  moral  corruption  is  hereditary  ;  and  it  is 
in  this  sense  only  that  we  can  accept  the  dogma  of  "  original  sin."  •'•' 


*The  Methodist  Article  of  Religion,  No.  VII  (Church  of  England  and 
Episcopal  Article,  No.  IX)  on  •' Original  or  Birth  Sin,"  admirably  defines 
thus: 

'•Original  sin  ...  is  the  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man, 
that  naturally  Is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man  Is 
very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  Is  of  his  own  nature  In- 
clined to  evil." 

This  means  that  man  Is  vitiated  in  nature;  but  does  not  connote  that 
he  Is  therefore  vicious  In  practice,  or  can  be  until  the  age  of  volition;  or 
that  he  rt^nains  vicious  after  regeneration. 


176  EXPOSITION. 

Original  sin  is  not  a  per.sonnl,  n-sponsible  participation  by  later 
geni'rations  in  tlio  first  man's  sin  (whether  as  sinfulness  or  as 
transgression),  and  in  the  guilt  of  it,  but  is  only  a  seminal  corrup- 
tion propagated  from  Adam  through  our  corrupt  line  of  ancestry, 
and  attaching  to  each  successive  generation,  but  not  cumulative; 
the  latest  generation  is  not,  so  far  forth,  worse  than  the  first. 
"Original  sin"  is,  at  tlie  most,  the  taint  entailed  from  a  corrupt 
origin,  but  is  not  the  original  transgression  of  Adam  ;  and  it  is  not 
guilt.  "We  do  not  inherit  guilt.  Such  a  proposition  is  unethical 
and  untiiinkable.  We  inlu-rit  from  Adam  a  native  corruption,  a 
consequence  of  his  fall,  but  we  are  without  responsibility  for  it. 
So  far  forth,  our  corruption  does  not  need  God's  pardon  or  forgive- 
ness, but  only  God's  pity,  and  forbearance,  and  remedial  measures  ; 
not  justifieation  (except  constructively)  :  but  only  regeneration. 
No  man  is  amenable  on  the  ground  of  sin  (sinfulness),  but  only 
(in  the  case  of  adults)  on  the  ground  of  his  personal,  voluntary 
sins  (transgressions). 

The  other  words  in  this  passage,  "  transgression,  fall,  disobe- 
dience "  (the  Greek  words  are  all  compounded  with  the  preposition 
vapa,  "amiss,  aside"),  express  in  common  (as  does  the  second 
sense  of  "  sin,"  and  the  plural  "  sins  "),  overt,  voluntary  violations 
of  law.  They  are  willful  acts  of  free  agents ;  they  are  not  hered- 
itary ;  they  are  always  accompanied  and  followed  by  guilt ;  and 
the  transgressor  needs  pardon  and  regeneration. 

Tlie  distinction  between  the  two  senses  of  the  substantive, 
"  sin,"  holds  also  in  regard  to  all  the  derivations  of  the  word, — the 
adjective  "sinful,"  the  substantive  "sinners,"  and  especially  the 
verb  "  to  sin."  The  first  sense,  given  above,  of  seminal  or  innate 
corruption,  as  distinct  from  overt  transgression,  is  the  sense  of 
all  these  words,  as  aifirmed  of  the  descendants  of  Adam,  in  this 
passage.  Clearly  in  the  twelfth  verse  the  noun  "sin"  can  have 
no  other  meaning.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  give  it  as  applied 
to  the  descendants  of  Adam,  the  sense  of  overt  voluntary  trans- 
gression. Such  a  sense  is  appropriate  for  the  act  of  Adam,  the 
first  willful,  culpable  sinner;  but  not  for  his  hapless,  helpless 
posterity.  Adam's  act  is  expressly  called  by  all  these  names, 
"  sin,"  "  transgression,"  "  fall,"  "  disobedience  ;"  but  the  involun- 
tary participation  of  his  posterity  in  the  results  of  his  act  (not  in 
the  act  itself),  is  called  "sin,"  that  is,  sinfulness,  innate  corrup- 
tion; but  is  never  called  transgression.  Adam's  transgression 
entailed  corruption,  but  not  transgression,  and  not  guilt.     Paul 


ROMANS  V,  12.  177 

did  not  say,  and  could  not  have  said,  "Through  one  man,  the 
transgression  came  into  the  world  of  men."  His  thought,  cor- 
rectly expressed  in  his  words,  is,  "  Through  one  man  ['  one  man's 
fall,'  V.  17J  sin  (sinfulness,  corruption)  came  into  the  world." 

This,  too,  is  the  sense,  the  only  possible  sense,  of  the  word 
"sinful"  [or  "sinners"],  in  the  nineteenth  verse:  "Through  the 
disobedience  of  the  one  man,  the  many  were  constituted  sinful" 
[or  "sinners,"  as  the  English  translations  less  correctly  give  it]. 
This,  too,  especially,  is  the  sense,  the  only  possible  sense,  of  the 
niuch  debated  verb  "sinned  "  in  the  twelfth  verse:  "Death  came 
tliroughout  unto  all  men,  because  [or,  '  for  that ']  all  sinned."  The 
word  "  all "  includes  infants,  to  whom  death  comes,  as  well  as 
adults ;  but  infants  can  not  be  counted  as  overt  sinners.  The 
apostle's  argument  in  this  passage,  and  the  uniform  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  all  rational  theodicy,  require  that  we 
consistently  explain  the  verb,  if  we  can  not  translate  it,  "  They 
became  sinful,"  they  incurred  sin  [sinfulness],  they  inherited 
Adam's  corruption, — though  not  his  guilt.  This  can  be  said  of 
infants;  and  this  is  all  that  can  be  said  of  them.  This,  indeed,  is 
Paul's  own  explanation  of  the  sense,  in  the  words  just  quoted: 
"Through  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man,  the  many  were  consti- 
tuted sinful."     (Verse  19.) 

But  it  by  no  means  follows,  because  the  descendants  of  Adam 
are  held,  in  consequence  of  his  sin,  as  "  sinful,"  that  they  partook 
of  his  offense,  or  share  in  his  guilt,  and  are  accounted  as  person- 
ally violators  of  law.  As  born  corrupt,  though  innocently,  God's 
law  counts  us  sinful ;  and  though  it  does  not  look  on  us  with  com- 
placency, it  does  not  condemn  us,  and  the  Gospel  of  Christ  pro- 
vides an  instant  and  adequate  remedy  ;  it  brings  regeneration  and 
justification.  The  death  which  Adam  incurred  was  his  personal 
punishment  for  his  personal  transgression.  The  death  entailed  on 
all  his  innocent  posterity,  including  infants,  who  die  as  belonging 
to  the  fallen  race,  is,  administratively,  the  legal  but  not  inculpa- 
tive  penalty  to  the  race,  from  inherited  corruption;  but  it  is  not  a 
personal  punishment  inflicted  on  us  for  Adam's  sin,  or  for  our  sins. 
Notice,  that  penally  is  simply  legal  results,  which  may  come  upon 
an  innocent  person  ;  punishment  is  administrative  retribution,  and 
always  implies  guilt.  There  is  no  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  (trans- 
gression) to  the  race,  on  the  ground  of  inherited  corruption  ;  there 
is  no  demerit  attaching  to  us,  because  of  a  guilty,  or  culpable 
participation  in  his  transgression.  It  is  only  our  own  sin  (sinful- 
12 


178  EXPOSITION. 

noss)  that  is  imputed  to  us,  as  a  consequence  of  the  fall ;  and  not 
that  in  any  inculpative  sense;  and  the  sin  thus  imputed,  and  its 
appointed  penalty  of  death,  are  effectually  and  wholly  intercepted 
and  remedied  by  a  merciful  and  just  redemption.  Born  with  a 
corrupt  nature,  by  natural  propagation  from  Adam,  we  are  never- 
theless born  under  an  economy  of  grace,  as  well  as  of  law.  "  Where 
sin  [sinfulness,  not  sins]  abounded  (in  human  nature),  at  the  same 
instant,  grace  superabounded  [in  the  provisions  of  the  Gospel]." 
(Rom.  V,  20.)  Through  the  redemption  of  Christ,  every  infant  is 
born  justified  from  constructive  condemnation  ;  and  is  born  regen- 
er-ate  by  the  blood  of  sprinkling ;  and  therefore  every  infant  dying 
is  saved.  And  every  infant  that  lives  to  grow  up,  starts  with  a 
justified  and  regenerate  nature ;  and  every  adult,  who,  by  back- 
sliding,* has  lost  his  infant  innocency,  and  becomes  a  conscious 
and  willful  transgressor  (as  practically  all  adults  do),  may  never- 
theless, under  the  same  ample  provisions  of  the  Gospel,  repent  of 
his  personal  sins,  and  again  find  abundant  forgiveness,  and  regen- 
eration of  his  nature,  and  final  deliverance  from  death.  This  is 
the  sole  teaching  of  this  vexed  passage. 

There  is  no  theologian  who  would  venture  explicitly  to  declare 
what  all  Calvinistic  theologians  nevertheless  implicitly  teach,  that 
Adam  sinned  for  his  posterity.  And  yet,  the  entire  fiction  of  "the 
federal  headship"  of  Adam,  by  which  he  "represented"  us  in  his 
sin,  and  entailed  his  awful  guilt  on  his  unoffending  posterity, 
substantially  involves  the  whole  baseless,  monstrous  absui-dity. 
Who  delegated  "representative"  functions  to  Adam,  under  au- 
thority of  which  he  acted  for  us,  to  plunge  us  into  remediless 
woe?  Augustine's  famous  saying  that  "  We  were  all  in  Adam, 
since  we  all  were  that  single  one"  ("City  of  God,"  XIII,  14),  is  not 
true  theologically  in  any  sense,  real  or  putative,  and  is  utterly 
absurd  as  a  philosophical  proposition.  The  fact  that  we  are 
Adam's  posterity,  and  inherit  from  him  his  degenerate  nature,  is 
all  that  can  be  found  in  the  Scriptures,  or  made  out  in  reason,  as 
touching  our  relations  to  him,  or  to  his  transgression.  And  we 
must  hold  that  his  transgression  was  his  own  personal  affair,  and 
not  ours ;  though  it  "brought  death  into  the  world,  and  all  our 
woe."  How  admirably  discriminate  is  the  saying  of  Jeremiah: 
"  The  fathers  ate  sour  gi'apes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on 

*  "To  backslide"  Is  a  genuine  Biblical  word,  expressive  of  a  real  theo- 
logical concept.  Jeremiah  uses  the  word  thirteen  times;  Hosea  three 
times. 


ROMANS  V,  12.  179 

edge  ;  but  every  one  shall  die  for  his  own  iniquity."  (lev.  xxxi,  29.) 
Paul  declares  that:  "  In  Adam  we  all  die."  (1  Cor.  xv,  22.)  That 
we  inherit  death,  is  all  that  is  here  declared ;  but  when  any  affirm 
further,  that  "  In  Adam  all  sinned,"  we  deny  the  proposition,  which 
has  no  scintilla  of  truth,  except  so  far  as  the  saying  "  all  sinned  " 
has  been  explained  by  Paul  himself:  ''Through  [assuredly  not 
'In']  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man,  the  many  were  consti- 
tuted sinful."     (Rom.  v,  19.) 

Such  is  the  only  relation  we  bear  to  the  great  progenitor  of  the 
race.  There  is  nothing  mystic  or  transcendental  about  it.  It  is  in 
the  oi-dinary  line  of  nature.  It  was  in  his  paternity  only  that  he  en- 
tailed on  us  the  awful  inheritance  of  sin  and  death,  and  not  by  any 
incomprehensible  representative  headship.  The  offspring  bears  the 
impress,  physical  and  moral,  of  the  father.  We  see  this  heredity, 
not  only  in  the  bodily  resemblance  of  son  to  father,  and  often  in 
the  minutest  idiosyncrasies  of  disposition,  but,  above  all,  in  the 
transmitted  moral  character.  "Adam  begot  a  son  in  his  own  like- 
ness, after  his  image."  (Gen.  iii,  3.)  Such  is  the  teaching  of  the 
Scripture  in  regard  to  the  traduction  of  the  race,  body  and  soul, 
physically  and  morally ;  a  teaching  which  all  science  also  equally 
establishes.  This  doctrine  is  known  in  theology  as  "  traducian- 
ism."  We  derive  our  body  and  soul  ultimately  no  doubt  from 
God,  but  we  derive  them  intermediately  through  Adam. 

2.  Death.  Many  theologians  attempt  to  discriminate  the  kinds 
of  death  named  in  the  Bible.  They  catalogue  them  as  Death  Phys- 
ical, Death  Spiritual,  and  Death  Eternal.  But  this  catalogue  is 
not  Scriptural,  and  is  not  generic  or  logical.  There  are  not  three 
kinds  of  death.  The  Bible  knows  of  but  one  death,  the  death  of  the 
man;  and  herein  marks  no  sharp  division  into  body  and  spirit.* 
And  the  Bible  knows  of  death  only  as  an  extinction  of  being,  which, 
except  for  the  renewal  of  life  in  Christ,  is  eternal  death.  This 
surely  is  what  was  threatened  in  the  Garden ;  and  we  may  infer 
that,  but  for  the  gracious  intervention  of  redemption,  it  would 
have  been  inflicted  upon  Adam  "  in  the  day  that  he  sinned,"  and 


*The  phrase  "Spiritual  death"  is  not  found  In  the  Scriptures;  and 
the  concept  which  it  is  probably  intended  to  express  is  equally  unknown 
in  Scripture.  Those  who  use  the  phrase  mean  by  It  apparently  some  form 
of  punishment  of  sin;  though  not  extending  to  extinction  of  the  spirit. 
If  they  mean  "  alienation  from  the  life  of  God  "  (Eph.  iv,  IS)— that  is,  the 
extinction  of  all  goodness— this  is  not  a  punishment  of  sin,  but  is  the  sin 
itself! 


180  EXPOSITION. 

the  experiment  with  the  human  race  would  have  ended.  But 
Christ  intervened  and  redeemed  tlie  race  from  extinction,  and 
gave  man  a  "  renewal  of  life"  (Rom.  vi,4),  with  probational  op- 
jjortunity  to  make  tliis  life  eternal.  For  Christ's  redemption  did 
not  restore  man  unconditionally  to  the  conditions  forfeited  by  sin. 
It  suspended  the  penalty.  It  made  provision  for  man's  final  salva- 
tion on  new  conditions.  This  provision  contemplates  the  present 
regeneration  of  the  soul,  but  leaves  the  body  subject,  temporarily, 
to  death.  Paul  says:  "The  spirit  is  life  [made  alive]  on  account 
of  justification  ;  but  the  body  is  dead  [subject  to  death]  on  account 
of  sin."     (Rom.  viii,  10.) 

All  other  senses  of  the  word  "death,"  or  of  the  adjective 
"dead,"  are  figurative,  and  are  not  applicable  to  the  expression  of 
the  great  penalty.  Yet  the  Biblical  uses  of  the  words  all  refer  to 
the  passage  in  Genesis,  where  the  word  first  appears,  to  express  the 
penalty  for  transgression:  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof, 
thou  shalt  die,  shalt  die."*     (Gen.  ii,  17.) 

In  this  passage  the  word  denotes  only  natural  death ;  and 
thei'e  is  nothing  in  the  passage,  or  anything  else  in  the  Bible, 
which  implies  that  death  should  not  sweep  the  whole  compass  of 
man's  being.  It  suggests  nothing  to  us  as  to  a  penal  depravation  of 
the  soul  apart  from  the  body;  or  as  to  a  doleful  condition  of  the 
soul  after  death,  or  as  to  any  future  life  at  all,  conscious  or  uncon- 
scious, of  the  soul,  apart  from  the  body.  The  evidence  for  any 
such  moral  penalty  of  sin  must  be  sought  elsewhere,  and  will  be 
sought  in  vain.  And,  conversely,  the  "life"  described  in  the 
eighteenth  verse  of  this  section  as  bought  by  Christ,  is  the  resur- 
rection life,  the  annulling  of  the  natural  death  of  man:  "Christ 
abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and  incorruption  [non-death] 
to  light,  through  the  gospel"  (2  Tim.  i,  10) ;  and  this  "  life"  does 
not,  of  itself,  express  moral  results  or  consequences,  but  only  the 
forensic  reversal  of  the  physical  penalty. 

Verse  13.  For  to  the  extent  of  law  sin  -was  in  the  -world ; 
but  sin  is  not  reckoned,  if  there  be  no  law. 

The  conjunction  for  connects  back  to  the  clauses  in  the  twelfth 
verse,  "  all  sinned,"— "J//  sinned,  I  say  ;  for  to  the  extent  of  law 
there  was  sin  in  the  world."     The  word  law,  having  no  article, 


*  Notice  the  Intensive  Hebrew  repetition.    Compare  the  duplicative 
verb,  "I  have  seen,  /  have  seen.^''    (Acts  vU,  34.) 


ROMANS  V,  13.  181 

means,  as  so  constantly  in  Pauline  phraseology,  not  "  The  Law," 
the  Mosaic  legislation,  but  the  eternal,  universal,  moral  law.  And 
this,  as  well  as  the  whole  logic  of  the  passage,  determines  the 
meaning  of  the  preposition  fixP',  up  to,  to  the  extent  of.  This 
Greek  word  sometimes  denotes  time,  sometimes  extent,  as  deter- 
mined by  the  connection.  In  the  text  before  us,  the  sense  is  not 
temporal,  but  quantitative  ;  it  does  not  express  a  stretch  of  time, 
but  of  extent  or  prevalence.  In  the  fourteenth  verse,  where  the 
sense  is  evidently  of  time,  Paul  uses  a  different  word,  m^XP', 
"until,"  as  if  definitely  to  distinguish  the  quantitative  sense  of 
the  other. 

This  explanation  suits  not  only  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
preposition  itself,  but  the  specific  limitations  laid  dovrn  by  the 
apostle  in  the  text.  He  says  that  "There  was  sin  in  the  world; 
but  that  sin  is  not  reckoned  [we  might  almost  say  '  reckoned  with,' 
recognized  and  treated  as  transgression],  only  on  the  supposition 
of  there  being  no  law."  Of  course  the  "  law"  thus  alluded  to  was 
not  the  Law  of  Moses,  for  that  was  three  thousand  years  later; 
nor  was  it  the  specific  "commandment"  to  Adam  in  the  garden; 
for  the  men  who  died  "  from  Adam  until  Moses  did  not  sin  after 
the  sameness  with  tlie  transgression  of  Adam."  There  is,  then, 
no  other  law  conceivable  than  the  eternal,  unwritten,  unspoken, 
everywhere  regnant,  moral  law  of  right  and  wrong.  But  we  can 
not  say,  "  Vntil  this  law,"  which  is  dateless  ;  we  must  translate  and 
explain  the  text:  ''To  the  extent  of  this  law,"  this  great,  eternal, 
universal,  moral  law.  Paul's  argument  can  be  restated  thus :  "  Sin 
is  not  reckoned  with  as  transgression  and  punished,  if  there  be  no 
law;  but  death,  the  penalty  of  sin,  reigned  ;  and  therefore  sin  was 
recognized  and  reckoned  with  as  transgression ;  and  therefore 
there  was  law."  It  stands  syllogistically  thus:  "  Sin  can  not  be 
counted,  and  reckoned  with  as  sin,  if  there  be  no  law.  But  it  was 
so  reckoned  with,  for  death  reigned  ;  therefore  there  was  law." 

And  it  follows  that  this  law  was  not  that  of  Moses,  and  it  was 
not  that  special  commandment  given  to  Adam.  It  was  the  uni- 
versal, divine  law  of  right  and  wrong,  written  on  the  pages  of 
nature,  and  in  the  hearts  of  men.  There  never  was  a  time  when 
men  were  not  actually,  and  consciously,  subject  to  this  law,  if  to 
no  other.  They  recognized  it,  and  understood  it,  and  for  the  most 
part  obeyed  it,  because  of  their  conscience ;  but,  alas !  they  also 
often  disobeyed  it,  for  it  carried  with  it  no  formal  promulgation 
of  penal  sanctions.     Yet  while,  during  all  this  long  period  until 


182  EXPOSITION. 

Moses,  sin  was  recognized,  and  death  reigned,  man's  overt  trans- 
gressions were  not  always  reckoned  with,  or  visited  upon  men  with 
absolute  and  unerring  strictness.  "In  the  forbearance  of  (lod,  he 
passed  over  the  sins  of  the  olden  time"  (Rom.  iii,  25);  "lie  that 
knew  not  his  Lord's  will,  and  did  things  worthy  of  stripes,  was 
beaten  with  few  stripes  "  (Luke  xii,  48). 

Verse  14.  Nay,  but  death  reigned  from  Adam  until 
Moses,  even  over  them  that  sinned  not,  after  the  same- 
ness with  the  transgression  of  Adam, — who  is  type  of  the 
Second  Adam  (1  Cor.  xv,  45)  that  was  to  come. 

The  statement  in  this  verse  is  a  refutation  of  the  conceit  of 
the  Jews  that  tlieir  Law  was  the  universal  and  final  law.  Their 
Law  was  not  the  first;  it  will  not  be  the  last;  and  it  was  only  pro- 
visional and  provincial.  Long  before  the  date  of  the  Mosaic  Law, 
there  was  another  more  comprehensive  law,  which  held  all  men  in 
its  mighty  grasp,  "  a  law  which  God  manifested  to  them."  (Rom.  i, 
19.)  Nor  did  tlie  enactment  of  the  Mosaic  Law  change  the  relation 
of  men  at  large,  or  even  of  the  Jews,  to  this  eternal  law.  The  Law 
of  Sinai  defined  this  great  moral,  eternal  law  more  clearly,  but  did 
not  tlien  first  enact  it,  or  in  any  way  modify  it.  It  liad  always 
existed  ;  and  after  Sinai,  men  stood  related  to  it  precisely  as  before. 
But  Moses  added,  Jor  the  Jews,  the  Law  of  Circumcision  and  of 
Rites,  not  establishing  a  new  standard  of  righteousness,  but  simply 
regulating  the  religious  service  of  an  unspiritual  people.  The 
transgression  of  the  moral  law  was  sin,  subjectively;  the  trans- 
gression of  the  Mosaic  Law  (at  least  of  the  ceremonial  statutes), 
was  "  trespass,"  objectively,  which  could  be  atoned  for  by  bodily 
mortifications,  or  fines  or  sacrifices.  The  earlier  and  mightier  law 
was  still  regnant  everywhere,  and  carrying  death  to  all  the  i-ace, 
not  "  from  Adam  until  Moses"  only  ;  but  until  tlie  coming  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  "  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  liope."  It  is 
only  the  gospel  of  Christ  which  has  reversed  the  conditions  (tf  sin 
and  death,  under  which  the  race  was  hopelessly  held.  The  provi- 
sions of  the  Mosaic  Law  did  not  call  sin  into  being;  but  only  gave 
it,  already  existing,  the  metes  and  bounds  by  which  its  nature  and 
extent  could  be  more  clearly  measured.  It  defined  transgression 
and  pcnii\ty  for  (he  Jews,  but  not  for  the  rest  of  the  world.  This  Law 
was  but  temporary  in  its  design,  as  well  as  jjrovincial  in  its  range: 
"  A  Law  of  fleshly  ordinances,  imposed  until  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion." (Heb.  ix,  10.)  This  Law  with  its  "blood  of  bulls  and  of 
oats"  did  not  atone  for  sin  ;  and  did  not  abolish  death. 


ROMANS   V.    15-21.  183 

It  is  clearly  the  teaching  of  this  passage,  verses  12-14,  that  death 
came  to  all  men  ("io  men,"  observe,  though  certainly  not  to  the 
lower  animal  races)  as  the  result  of  Adam's  transgression.  The 
heredity  of  sin  brought  with  it  to  men  not  guilt,  but  dcalh,  as  the 
penal  result  of  our  seminal  taint.  The  verb  that  denotes  the  sway 
of  deatli  is  very  expressive :  Death  kinged  it  over  men.  This 
was  our  involuntary  inheritance  from  Adam's  sin.  From  this  fatal 
inheritance  the  redemption  of  Christ  bought  us  off,  and  "abol- 
ished death  "  for  us.  Yet,  while  this  gracious  intervention  has  been 
effected /or  the  race,  without  our  personal  co-operation  or  consent, 
and  has  thus  delivered  all  the  race  of  Adam  from  their  ill  heredity, 
we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  other  fact  that  men's  voluntary, 
personal  sin  in  adult  life  subjects  them  to  personal  guilt,  and,  if 
they  die  impenitent,  to  the  penalty  of  a  "second  death." 

The  class  described  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  who  sinned  not 
after  the  sameness  with  the  transgression  of  Adam,  does 
not  directly  contemplate  the  case  of  innocent  children  (though 
they  are  included),  but  of  all  the  race.  None  of  the  descendants 
of  Adam  sinned  as  Adam  did,  against  the  specific  statute  of  the 
Garden.  Their  sin  (sinfulness)  came  by  inheritance;  it  was  for 
this  they  died,  not  for  their  own  sins  (transgressions),  though  these 
also,  upon  their  occurrence,  were  worthy  of  death.  But  under 
the  gospel  scheme,  men  are  born  to  an  inheritance  of  life,  as  well 
as  an  inhei-itance  of  death.  Adam  who  brought  condemnation  to 
death  upon  all  his  posterity,  was  in  his  actual  racial  headship 
(but  not  in  any  federal  sense)  the  foretype  of  Christ;  and  the 
second  and  greater  Adam,  in  his  constructive  racial  headship,  was 
the  aftertype  of  Adam,  and  by  his  death  brought  justification  to  a 
lost  race. 

And  this  last  glorious  declaration,  the  first  mention  of  Christ, 
in  this  passage,  leads  us  to  the  apostle's  striking  antithesis  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ,  as  developed  in  the  next  seven  verses. 

Verses  15-21.  Nay,  but  not  as  was  the  fall,  so  also  was 
the  act  of  grace.  For  if  by  the  fall  of  the  one  man  the 
many  died,  much  rather  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  in 
the  grace  of  the  One  Man,  Jesus  Christ,  abounded  unto 
the  many.  And  not,  as  was  the  fall  through  one  man 
that  sinned,  so  was  the  gift:  for  the  judgment  indeed  was 
from  one  [fall]  unto  condemnation,  but  the  act  of  grace 
was  from  many  falls  unto  justification.  For  if,  in  the  fall 
of  the  one  man,  the  death  reigned  through  the  one  man ; 


184  EXPOSITION. 

much  rather  they  that  receive  the  abundance  of  the  ^race 
and  of  the  gift  of  justification,  will  reign,  in  life,  through 
the  One  Man,  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly,  then,  as  through 
one  fall  [the  result  was]  unto  all  men  unto  condemnation; 
so  also  through  one  act  of  justification  [the  result]  was 
unto  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  just  as  through 
the  disobedience  of  the  one  man  the  many  were  constituted 
sinful,  so  also  through  the  obedience  of  the  One  Man  the 
many  will  be  constituted  just.  But  law  came  in  besides 
that  the  fall  may  multiply ;  but  where  the  sin  multiplied, 
the  grace  overabounded ;  that,  just  as  the  sin  reigned  in 
the  death,  so  also  the  grace  may  reign  through  justification 
unto  life  eternal  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

In  verses  15-21  we  come  to  the  famous  parallel,  or,  rather, 
contrast,  between  Adam  and  Christ.  This  brief  passage  is  perhaps 
the  most  noted  and  the  most  quoted  in  all  Paul's  Epistles.  There 
is  indeed  no  other  passage  of  the  same  extent  in  the  world's  liter- 
ature, sacred  or  profane,  so  compact,  and  complete,  and  suggestive. 
The  style  is  grave,  noble,  impressive,  authoritative.  The  two  great 
heads  of  the  race  are  introduced.  Adam  in  the  Fall,  Christ  in  the 
Redemption;  and  the  results  of  the  Fall,  and  the  results  of  the 
Redemption  are  shown  in  strong  and  pointed  contrast:  Adam's 
Fall  brought  sin  and  death  ;  Christ's  Atonement  brought  justifica- 
tion and  life. 

The  passage  is  embarrassingly  concise,  the  woi-ding  of  the 
antitheses  meager  and  obscure.  Paul  gives  only  the  barest  state- 
ments, and,  to  our  disappointment,  does  not  indulge  himself,  and 
does  not  indulge  his  readers,  in  any  exposition  of  the  grave  mat- 
ters in  issue,  on  either  side.  The  reader  constantly  desiderates  a 
few  more  specific,  explanatory  words  in  the  sentence,  a  little  more 
expansion  of  the  thought.  Yet  the  brief  statements  which  the 
apostle  has  given  us  amount,  when  carefully  weighed,  to  a  sub- 
stantial, and,  on  the  whole,  satisfactory  theodicy.  But  concise  as 
the  passage  is,  it  would  be  diflHcult  to  overestimate  the  place  which 
these  few  brief  utterances  hold  in  the  exhibition  of  Christian 
theology:  they  constitute  the  basis  of  all  orthodox  theological 
systems  of  Anthropology  and  Christology.  No  woi-ds,  aside  from 
those  of  the  Master,  are  so  often  cited  ;  none  appear  so  often  in 
the  teaching  of  the  schools,  the  preaching  of  the  pulpits. 

The  antithetical  structure  of  this  passage  can  be  best  exhib- 


ROMANS  r.    15-21. 


185 


ited,  and  the  meaning  best  apprehended,  by  arranging  the  several 
protases  and  apodoses  in  pai-allel  columns ;  of  wiiicli  the  first  shall 
show  the  fall  of  Adam  and  its  results,  the  second  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ  and  its  results.  There  are  nine  several  antitheses 
in  the  following  presentation  of  the  passage,  marked  by  Roman 
numerals,  and  the  several  sections  of  the  single  verses  are  marked 
by  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  This  is  a  closely  literal  transla- 
tion;  with  a  few  words  supplied  [in  brackets],  as  demanded  by 
the  cui'rent  sense,  or  authorized  from  other  parallel  verses.  I 
have  italicized  the  contrasted  and  emphatic  words. 


ADAM'S  FALL. 

I.  15a.  Nay,  but  not,   as  w^as 
the  Fall, 

II.  15c.  For  if,  by  the  Fall  of 
the  one  man,  the  many  die, 


in.  16a.  And  not,  as  was  [the 
Fall]  through  one  man,  having 
sinned ; 

IV.  16c.  For  the  judgment,  in- 
deed, was  from  one  [Fall]  to  a 
sentence  of  condemnation  [of  all 
men  to  Death,  v.  18a]  ; 

V.  17«.  For  if  in  the  i^'aZZ  of  the 
one  man  the  Death  reigned 
through  the  one  man  [over  all 
men,  v.  12] ; 


VI.  18a.  Accordingly,  then,  as 
through  one  Fall  [the  result],  was 
unto  all  men  unto  condemnation 
[to  Death] ; 


CHRIST'S  GRACE. 

156.    So   also  vpas   the   act   of 

Grace; 

Ibd.  Much  rather  the  Grace  of 
God,  and  the  Gift  in  the  Grace 
of  the  One  Man,  Jesus  Christ, 
abounded  unto  the  many  [unto 
justification  of  Life,  v.  18]. 

166.  So  also  was  the  [perfect] 
Gift  [thi'ough  One  Man  having 
justified  us  J. 

16d.  But  the  act  of  Grace  was 
from  many  Falls  unto  a  sentence 
of  justification  [of  all  men  to 
Life,  V.  186]. 

176.  Much  rather  they  that  re- 
ceive the  abundance  of  the  Grace 
and  of  the  Gift  of  justification 
will  reign  in  Life  through  the 
One  Man,  Jesus  Christ. 

186.  So,  also,  through  one  act 
of  justification  [the  result],  was 
unto  all  men,  unto  justification 
of  Life. 


LS6 


EXPOSITION. 


ADAM'S  FALL. 

VIL  19a.  For  as  through  the 
Disobedience  of  the  one  man,  the 
many  were  constitued  sinful ; 

VIII.  20a.  But  law  came  in  be- 
sides, that  the  Fall  may  multiply  ; 

IX.  21a.  That  as  the  Sin 
reigned  in  the  Death; 


CHRIST'S  GRACE. 

196.  So  also  through  the  Obe- 
dience of  the  One  Man,  the  many 
will  be  constituted  j?/s<. 

20h.  But  where  this  Sin  multi- 
plied, the  Grace  overaljounded ; 

21b.  So,  also,  the  Grace  may 
reign  through  justification  unto 
Life  eternal,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
our  Lord. 


The  following  is  an  abstract,  or  outline,  of  the  teaching  of  this 
passage,  and  of  the  gospel  of  Christ: 

II. 

Christ,  the  Second  Adam,  and 
constructive  Head  of  the  race, 
carried,  potentially,  all  the  race 
redeemed  by  his  vicarious  death, 
with  him: 

First.  In  regeneration  of  their 
nature.     And  so  we  read : 

1.  "God  saved  us  through  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
(Tit.  iii,  5.)  "We  are  conform 
with  the  image  of  his  Son." 
(Rom.  viii,  29.) 

Secondly.  In  justification,  or 
acquittal,  from  condemnation. 
And  so  we  read : 

2.  "  The  results  were  unto  all 
men  unto  justification  to  life." 
(Rom.  v,  18.) 


I. 

Adam,  the  progenitor  of  the 
race,  carried  all  his  descendants 
with  him : 


First.  In  corruption,  or  degen- 
eracy of  nature.  And  so  we 
I'ead : 

1.  "  He  begot  a  son  in  his  own 
likeness."  (Gen.v,3.)  "Through 
the  disobedience  of  the  one  man, 
the  many  were  constituted  sin- 
ful."    (Rom.  v,  19.) 


Secondly.  In  obnoxiousness  to 
to  the  penalty,  for  a  construc- 
tive, not  culpative,  guilt.  And 
so  we  read : 

2.  "Through  one  Fall,  the  re- 
sults were  unto  all  men  unto 
condemnation  to  death."  (Rom. 
V,  18. 


ROMANS  V.    15-21. 


\%*t 


Thirdly.  In  actual  subjection 
to  tlie  penalty  of  death.  And  so 
we  read : 

3.  "Death  came  througliout 
unto  all  men."  (Rom.  v,  12.) 
"In  Adam  all  die."  (1  Cor. 
XV,  22.) 


Tliirdhj.  In  removal,  or  rever- 
sal, of  the  penalty.  And  so  we 
read : 

3.  "So  in  Christ  will  all  be 
made  alive."     (1  Cor.  xv,  22.) 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  discussion  is  restricted  to  the  legal, 
or  forensic,  phases  of  the  Fall  and  of  the  Recovery.  The  contrast 
is  betw^een  sin  as  condemnatory,  not  as  contaminative  ;  and  Grace 
as  justificatory,  and  not  as  regenerative.  This  Epistle  does  not 
deal  with  moral  issues.  The  moral  elements  in  the  contrasted 
sphei-es  of  action,  contamination  and  regeneration,  are  not  touched 
upon  here,  and  are  only  barely  alluded  to  in  any  other  part  of 
the  Epistle.  Condemnation  and  justification  occupy  the  apostle's 
whole  field  of  view  here  and  throughout  the  dogmatic  part  of  the 
Epistle,  to  the  end  of  the  eleventh  chapter. 

We  now  come  to  an  examination  and  discussion  of  these  nine 
antitheses,  severally.  There  is  a  marked  resemblance  in  the  bal- 
anced structure  of  these  antitheses.  Of  the  nine  protases  describ- 
ing the  action  of  sin,  all  begin  with  the  argumentative  adverbial 
conjunctions  for,  or  as,  pointing  to  the  logical  apodoses  ;  and  of  the 
nine  apodoses  describing  the  counter  work  of  Christ,  five  begin  with 
the  answering  equilibrant  words  so  also,  two  with  the  augmen- 
tative words  much  rather,  and  two  with  the  adversative  con- 
junction but. 


I.  15a.    Nay,  but  not,  as  was 
the  Fall, 


156.    So  also  was  the  act  of 
Grace ; 


The  first  clause  begins  with  the  strongest  adversative  con- 
junction, which,  as  we  have  seen  before,  is  best  expressed  with  the 
help  of  the  word  nay.  The  previous  verse  ended  in  a  parallel 
between  Adam  and  Christ,  showing  the  likeness  of  the  great  pro- 
totype and  the  greater  Antitype  in  their  racial  headships.  But 
with  the  fifteenth  verse,  and  so  onward  through  the  chapter,  there 
is,  instead  of  a  resemblance,  only  a  sharp  contrast,  or  antithesis, 
between  the  two,  and  between  their  relations  to  men. 

The  translation  act  of  grace  is  used  to  discriminate  xdpicr/xa 
(here  and  in  IQd)  from  the  customary  word  for  grace,  x^^P's  (in  15(/). 
Certainly  the  translation  "  free  gift"  in  the  Authorized  and  the 


188  EXPOSITION. 

Revised  misses  the  point  of  tlie  contrast;  besides  which,  tlic  word 
"  free  "  adds  nothing  to  the  meaning  of  tlie  word  "  gift:"  it  is  an 
idle  tautology. 

This  first  antithesis  contrasts  the  two  antagonistic  agencies, 
the  Fall  and  the  Grace,  in  their  nature,  or  character.  In  this 
contrast,  the  thougiit  in  full  seems  to  be  this:  The  Fall  was  an 
act  that  brought  corruption  and  death  to  the  race ;  sin  and  its 
brother,  death,  ti-avel  together.  But  not  so  was  the  Grace  of 
Christ;  its  work  was  the  opposite:  it  abolished  death, and  brought 
life  and  incorrujition  [non-death]  to  light. 


II.  15r.  For  if  by  the  Fall 
of  the  one  man  the  many 
died. ; 


15'/.  Much  rather  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  Gift  in  the 
Grace  of  the  One  Man,  Jesus 
Christ,  abounded  unto  the 
many  [unto  justification  of 
Life,  V.  18]. 

The  second  antithesis  contrasts  the  Fall  and  the  Grace  in  their 
specific  results,  and  in  the  extent  to  which  the  results  readied. 
The  Fall  brought  Death  unto  the  many ;  the  Grace  counteracted 
the  results  of  sin ;  but  it  did  more :  it  abounded  unto  the  many 
over  all  the  entailment  of  the  Fall.  Its  refluent  wave  swept  back 
overall  barriers,  and  left  redeemed  man  in  safer  condition,  ideally 
at  least,  than  was  Adam  even  in  his  first  probation. 

The  term  the  many,  here,  is  coextensive  with  all  in  the 
eighteenth  verse.  The  word  "  tlie  many,"  rather  than  "  all,"  is 
suggested  by  the  word  "the  one,"  to  which  it  forms  the  appro- 
priate numerical  antithesis;  and,  besides,  it  connotes  what  the 
word  "  all  "  does  not,  that  the  class  which  it  describes  is  not  small, 
but  "a  multitude  such  as  no  man  can  number."*     Certainly  we 


*The  population  of  the  globe  to-day  Is  estimated  at  fifteen  hundred 
millions.  But  of  the  whole  number  of  those  who  are  born  Into  the  world, 
half  (lie  In  infiuicy,  and  are  never  counted  in  the  census;  and,  as  a  "  gener- 
ation'" may  l)e  taken  ut  one-third  of  u  century,  it  follows  that  tliree  thou- 
sand millions  are  born  and  die  every  thirty-three  years.  If  we  count  the 
age  of  the  race  as  only  six  thousand  years  (though  It  Is  probably  double 
that),  and  make  allowance  for  the  early  paucity  of  the  population,  still  a 
very  conservative  estimate  makes  the  number  of  the  human  family  that 
have  lived  and  died  to  the  present  time  at  least  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  millions.  How  dreadful  the  ravages  of  sin!  Surely  Death  has 
"kinged  It  "among  men!  And  how  glorious  the  Grace  that  redeemed 
them  all.  "the  wiawj/.'"— the  Grace  that  has  taken  thought  for  each  one, 
personally,  of  this  vast  multitude— that  certainly  saves  one-half  the  num- 
ber, and  as  many  more  as  will,  and  is  adequate  to  save  all. 


ROMANS  V.    15-21. 


189 


can  not  concede  the  Calvinistic  explanation  that  "the  many"  are 
fewer  than  "all,"  and  that  the  term  is  used  advisedly  for  only 
"  the  elect."  On  the  contrary,  the  word  "  the  many  "  is  used  with- 
out any  mark  of  difference,  on  both  sides  of  the  antithesis — for 
those  who  are  affected  by  the  Fall,  and  for  those  who  are  affected 
by  the  work  of  Grace.    "  The  many,"  in  this  connection,  are  "aW." 

III.  16a.  And  not,  as  was  I  166.  So  also  was  the  [per- 
[the  Fall]  through  one  man,  feet]  Gift,  [through  One  Man, 
having  sinned ;  I  having  justified  us]. 

The  third  antithesis  repeats  substantially  the  brief  points 
found  in  the  first  antithesis;  and  takes  a  step  in  advance,  by 
adding  some  qualifications.  The  yet  further  supplies  [added  in 
brackets],  are  borrowed  from  the  parallels  elsewhere.  The  word 
the  Fall,  in  16o,  is  justified  by  the  same  word  in  15a ;  and  the 
word  perfect  in  166,  "  the  perfect  Gift,"  is  inserted  on  the  author- 
ity of  James  i,  17,  to  discriminate,  rhetorically,  the  special  word 
dwprjfjLa,  "gift,"  from  its  more  general  synonym  duped,  gift,  in  15d 
and  17c.  The  advanced  point  in  16a,  through  one  man  that 
sinned,  which  specifies  the  guilty  cause  of  our  condemnation, 
justifies  the  addition  in  166,  of  the  correlate  clause,  through  One 
Man  that  justified  us. 


IV.  16c.  For  the  judgment 
indeed  was  from  one  [Fall] 
unto  a  sentence  of  condem- 
nation [of  all  men,  to  death] ; 


16cZ.  But  the  act  of  Grace 
w^as  from  many  Falls,  unto  a 
sentence  of  justication  [of  all 
men,  to  life]. 


The  fourth  antithesis  contrasts,  as  in  II,  the  work  of  the  Fall 
and  the  act  of  Grace,  in  the  direction  and  the  range  of  their  several 
operations  ;  but  now  the  stress  of  the  contrast  is  on  the  single  Fall 
of  Adam,  from  which  the  condemnation  came,  and  the  many  Falls, 
or  transgressions,  of  his  posterity,  from  which  Grace  delivers 
them.  Adam's  probation  was  forfeited  by  a  single  sin ;  our  pro- 
bation under  Christ,  gives  the  race  the  opportunity,  and  the  real- 
ization, of  recovery  from  many  sins. 

One  text  in  the  first  line  of  16c  reads,  was  from  one  Pall. 
The  old  translation  "by  one"  implies  that  the  word  "one"  is 
masculine,  though  it  does  not  supply  the  word  "  man."  But  the 
parallelism  of  the  two  antithetic  clauses,  as  well  as  the  sense, 
allows  no  other  supply  than  "  Fall." 


190  EXPOSITION. 


V.  17a.    For  if  in  the  Fall  of 


the  one  man,  the  Death 
reigned,  through  the  one  man 
[over  all  men] ; 


17I>.    Much  rather  they  that 


receive  the  abundance  of  the 
Grace,  and  of  the  Gift  of 
justification  will  reign  in  life 
through  the  One  Man,  Jesus 
Christ. 

The  fifth  antithesis  contrasts  the  victory  of  Death  and  the 
victory  of  Grace.  Death  "kinged  it"  over  all  men;  but  this  tri- 
umi)li  is  short;  they  that  receive  Grace  and  justification  [namely, 
all  men],  will,  in  their  turn,  "king  it"  over  Death,  in  eternal  life, 
througli  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  ideal  and  actual  result  of  the 
gospel.  "  In  Christ  all  men  will  be  made  alive."  (1  Cor.  xv,  22.) 
And  for  all  who  will,  the  resurrection  life  will  continue  to  eternal 
life. 


VI.  18a.  Accordingly,  then, 
as  through  one  Fall,  [the  re- 
sult) was  unto  all  men,  unto 
condemnation  [to  Death]  ; 


186.  So  also,  through  one 
act  of  justification,  [the  re- 
sult) was  unto  all  men,  unto 
justification  of  Life. 


The  sixth  antithesis  contrasts  the  result,  or  outcome,  of  the 
Fall  in  bringing  condemnation  to  man,  and  the  result,  or  outcome, 
of  Christ's  work  in  bringing  justification  to  man.  This  word  out- 
come, or  result,  is  tlie  simplest,  and  sufficient  sup|)ly  for  botii 
clauses.  The  one  Fall  resulted  in  condemnation  of  all  men  to 
death;  the  one  justifying  work  resulted  in  the  justification  of  all 
men  to  life.  The  last  phrase,  justification  of  Life,  means  that 
gracious  justification  from  condemnation  to  death,  which,  con- 
trariwise, entitles  men  to  life.  Li/e  is  simply  the  opposite  of 
death;  and  while  the  word  does  not,  in  itself,  mean  eternal  life, 
but  only  the  reversal  of  the  death  penalty,  yet  this  title  to  life, 
will,  as  we  saw  under  verse  17,  reach,  "  for  those  that  seek  incor- 
rui)tion,"  unto  eternal  life.  But  in  Scriptural  phraseology,  the 
word  "life"  usually  connotes,  the  idea  of  eternit;/.  Christ  said: 
"  I  came  that  they  may  have  life"  (John  x,  10) ;  but  he  also  said: 
"  He  that  has  faith  upon  the  Son  has  eternal  life"  (John  iii,  36). 

Y  IT.  19'/.  For  just  as  through  I     196.    So  also,  through  the 
the  Disobedience  of  the  one   Obedience  of  the  One  Man, 


man,  the  many  were  consti- 
tuted sinful ; 


the  many  will  be  constituted 
just. 


The  seventh  antithesis  contrasts  the  results  of  Adam's  Dis- 
obedience, and  of  Christ's  Obedience  upon  man's  forensic  relation 


ROMANS  V.    15-91. 


191 


to  the  law  of  God.  The  conjunction  for  logically  refers  to  verse 
18,  and  adduces  the  results  there  described  as  the  grounds  severally 
for  the  condemnation  of  the  race  to  death,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
for  their  justification  and  restoration  to  life,  on  the  other  hand. 

Tlic  parallelism  requires  that  the  j)redicate  afiapruXoL  in  19a  be 
translated  by  the  adjective  sinful,  as  in  Romans  vii,  13,  not  "  sin- 
ners," as  in  the  old  Versions.  It  thus  corresponds  to  the  adjective 
just  in  196.  The  word  sinful  has  the  sense  already  explained,  in 
the  note  to  verse  12,  of  being  degenerate  or  corrupt  in  nature,  and 
not,  as  the  word  "  sinners"  means,  of  being  overt,  pei'sonal  trans- 
gressors. It  expresses  the  inherited  characteristic  of  the  race,  the 
inculpable  seminal  taint  in  our  human  nature,  and  not  the  willful, 
culpable,  transgression  in  our  outer  lives.  On  the  opposite  side  of 
the  antithesis  the  word  JHS^,  which  is  almost  synonymous  with  the 
participle  "  justified  "  (Rom.  i,  17),  expresses  the  forensic  acquit- 
tance from  condemnation,  not  the  moral  regeneration.  The  word 
here  used  does  not  mean  "  righteous,"  that  is  upright,  holy  ;  and 
in  Paul's  vocabulary  never  expresses  ethical  concepts. 

The  Obedience  of  the  One  Man  was  his  obedience  to  death.  "  He 
humbled  himself,  having  become  obedient  unto  death,  even  to  the 
death  of  the  cross."  (Phil,  ii,  8.)  It  expresses  what  is  sometimes 
called  his  "  passive  obedience,"  his  submission  to  die  the  most 
shameful  death,  a  just  man  for  unjust  men,  an  obedience  by  which 
"  the  many  were,  and  will  be  constituted  just." 


VIII.  20a.  But  law  came  in 
besides,  that  the  Fall  may 
multiply ; 


206.  But  where  the  sin 
multiplied,  the  G-race  over- 
abounded  ; 


The  verb  here  correctly  translated  multiply  is  usually  trans- 
lated "  abound  "  to  assimilate  it  with  the  last  verb  in  206  ;  but  we 
had  better  keep  the  apostle's  word  and  concept,  at  the  expense  of 
the  rhetorical  balancing  of  the  clauses.  The  word  law  means  the 
eternal,  moral  law.  It  came  in  into  human  consciousness  and 
human  conscience  as  a  factor  quickening  the  sense  of  sinfulness, 
and  causing  the  "  offense  to  multiply,"  that  sin  might  appear  yet 
more  sinful.  The  word  besides  means  in  addition  to  the  ordinary 
rectoral  function  of  law.  The  working  of  law  does  not  actually 
"  multiply  offenses,"  but  so  it  seems:  it  makes  the  awakened  con- 
science quicker  to  recognize  them.  "  The  sinner  is  alive  ;  but  the 
law  comes  home  to  him,  and  he  dies."  But  in  the  counter-working 
of  the  gospel,  where  sin  is  multiplying  itself,  to  the  alarmed  soul, 


192 


EXPOSITION. 


Grace  intervenes,  und  overabounds ;  and  brings  justification,  and 
peace,  and  life. 


IX.  21a.    That  just  as  the 
Sin  reigned,  in  the  Death, 


21^.  So  also  the  Grace  may 
reign  through  justification 
unto  Life  eternal  through  Je- 
sus Christ  our  Lord. 


The  ninth  antithesis  is  the  triumphant  climax.  Sin  once 
"  kinged  it"  over  men,  in  the  universal  dominance  of  death.  Its 
domain  is  one  of  desolation  and  vacuity.  Grace  will  "  king  it," 
through  justification,  in  a  higher  and  better  reign,  in  a  domain  of 
Life,  eternal  Life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 


CHAFTEK   YI. 


Verse  1.  Jew:  "What  then  shall  we  say?  Shall  we 
continue  in  the  sin,  that  the  grace  may  multiply?" 

For  a  correct  understanding  of  the  discussion  upon  which  we 
now  enter  we  must  remember,  first  of  all,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
that,  while  the  general  theme  of  the  Epistle  is  the  equality  of  the 
Gentiles  with  the  Jews,  yet  the  specific  doctrine  set  forth  in  this 
discussion  is  that  of  justification  from  faith.  The  whole  discussion 
turns  on  this  doctrine.  The  usual  interpretation  of  this  impor- 
tant section  (including  the  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  chapters),  as 
being  a  discussion  of  the  higher,  ethical  doctrine  of  regeneration 
and  sanctification,  is  a  grave  exegetical  error.  In  point  of  fact, 
the  apostle,  throughout  the  first  eleven  chapters,  which  are  the 
doctrinal  chapters  of  the  Epistle,  does  not  touch,  or  does  no  more 
than  barely  touch,  on  the  great  themes  of  regeneration  and  sanc- 
tification. There  are,  in  this  Epistle,  only  two  briefest  allusions,  of 
two  words  each  (the  same  words  in  both  places),  to  this  branch  of 
Christian  teaching  which  elsewhere  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  meet 
with  so  copious  and  satisfactory  treatment.  These  two  allusions 
are  found  in  this  sixth  chapter ;  and  there  are  none  at  all  in  the 
seventh  and  eighth.     They  are  as  follows : 

1.  "Yield  your  members  slaves  to  justification,  with  a  view  to 
sanctification."  (Rom.  vi,  19.)  2.  "  Having  been  enfreed  from  the 
sin.  ...  ye  have  your  fruit  with  a  view  to  sanctificatio7i."  (Rom. 
vi,  22.)  But  these  brief  passages  are  not  discussions  of  the  higher 
experimental  doctrine  of  holiness ;  they  are  mere  side  allusions, 
which  might  have  been  omitted  from  the  Epistle  without  impair- 
ment to  the  logical  trend  and  tread  of  the  argument  on  justifi- 
cation. 

The  question  with  which  the  sixth  chapter  opens  evidently  be- 
longs to  the  Jew.  The  fifth  chapter  closes  with  the  apostle's  say- 
13  193 


I'M  EXPOSITION. 

ing  tluvt  "  Wliere  the  sin  imiltiplied,  tlie  grace  overabouiided." 
To  this  statement,  so  broad  and  unqualified,  the  Jew,  or  any  cav- 
iler,  might  object  that  tliis  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace  alone, 
unlike  the  condemnatory  and  repressive  attitude  of  /aw,  not  only 
opposes  no  restraint  to  license,  but  even  encourages  continuance 
in  it.  It  is  substantially  the  same  objection  against  the  apostle's 
teaching  that  we  met  before  in  the  words  of  the  Jew:  "If  God's 
truth  [truthfulness  to  the  covenant]  abounded  to  his  glory  by  my 
falseness  fto  the  covenant],  why  am  I  also  judged  and  condemned 
as  sinful?"  (Rom.  iii,  7.)  To  that  objection  the  apostle  answered 
with  a  reductio  ad  absiirdum:  "  Then,  on  the  same  principle,  shall 
we  do  the  evil  things  that  the  good  things  may  come? — whose 
condemnation  is  just?"  Of  course,  the  phrase  "  continue  in  the 
sin"  means  "continue  in  the  indulgence  of  sin;"  and  the  word 
''grace"  here  means  the  grace  of  God  in  justification,  or  pardon, 
and  not  in  sanctification. 

Verse  2.  Pati. :  God  forbid!  How  shall  we  who  died 
as  to  the  sin  yet  live  in  it  ? 

Some  of  the  most  striking  expressions  in  the  Englrsh  transla- 
tion of  these  chapters,  such  as  "righteousness,"  "  to  die  to  sin," 
"  dead  to  sin,"  "  alive  to  God,"  "  newness  of  life,"  "  crucified  with 
Christ,"  have  become  established  common  places  in  our  religious 
phraseology,  to  express  spiritual  experiences  ;  and  they  will,  no 
doubt,  continue  to  be  so  used.  Indeed,  the  words,  and  the  pas- 
sages in  which  they  are  found,  seem  at  first  almost  incapable  of  any 
other  meaning.  Yet  the  exegete  must  finally  recognize  the  cer- 
tainty that  the  apostle  in  his  writings  always  employs  those  ex- 
pressions in  quite  other  senses.  In  point  of  fact,  first,  some  of 
these  English  expressions  are  absolutely  impossible  as  translations 
of  the  apostle's  Greek;  the  corresponding  Greek  words  never 
express  ethical  concepts  ;  and,  second,  at  any  rate,  ethical  concepts 
are  out  of  place  in  this  forensic  discussion.  The  proper  interpre- 
tation of  the  chapter,  and  of  much  of  the  apostle's  language  here 
and  elsewhere  turns  ujjon  a  different  understanding  of  the  words. 

AVhat  then  is  the  meaning  of  the  saying  in  our  text.  We  died 
as  to  sin?  In  the  old  translation  the  passage  runs,  "  How  shall 
we  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein?"  This  language 
doubtless  expresses  an  ethical  death,  or  deadness  to  sin;  and  that 
only.  But  aside  from  tlie  fatal  objection  that  holds  against  it  as 
a  translation  of  the  Greek  verb,  there  are  logical  diflRculties  in  the 


RO.VAXS  VI,  2.  195 

way  of  explaining  this  death  as  an  etliical  one.  If  this  expression, 
"dead  to  sin,"  means  that  the  believer  has  become  insensitive, 
apathetic,  "dead,"  ethically,  to  the  seductiveness  of  sin,  and  its 
dominion  over  the  appetites  and  affections  ; — if  this  be  the  meaning 
of  the  passage,  why  should  the  apostle  inconsistently  and  inconse- 
quently  go  on  to  ask,  "  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin  (in  this 
ethical  sense)  live  any  longer  therein f"  It  is  a  question,  whose  in- 
consequence might  well  stir  the  envy  of  St.  Patrick  himself.  But, 
further,  in  whatever  sense  this  phrase  "dead  in  sin"  is  here  used 
in  respect  to  the  believer,  it  is  used  in  the  tenth  verse  in  just  the 
same  sense  in  respect  to  Christ  himself.  The  Greek  is  the  same 
in  both  places  ;  though  the  translators  did  not  venture  to  translate 
in  the  same  way  in  both  places.  If  the  tenth  verse  can  not  mean 
that  Christ  became  "dead  to  sin,"  in  the  sense  of  having  ceased, 
ethically,  to  be  responsive  to  its  influence  over  him,  so  neither  can 
the  words  in  the  second  verse,  as  spoken  of  the  believer,  have  that 
meaning,  or  receive  that  translation.  It  is  only  when  we  recognize 
that  the  argument  of  the  apostle  is  wholly  forensic,  and  not  ethical, 
and  interpret  his  language  in  accordance  with  this  view,  that  we 
reach  a  coherent,  consistent,  and  tolerable  sense. 

The  verb  died  (as  also  the  adjective  "dead,"  in  the  eleventh 
verse),  must  be  understood  not  figuratively,  or  mystically,  but 
literally.  It  expresses  physical  mortality.  It  describes  the  death 
denounced  in  the  Garden  (Gen.  ii,  17),  and  incurred  in  the  Fall, 
and  suffered  by  Christ,  vicariously,  on  the  cross,  and  by  the  race, 
in  the  person  of  Christ.  It  was  literal  and  actual  with  Christ ; 
and  it  is  equally  literal,  though  only  constructive,  with  us.  The 
verb  is  in  the  past  tense,  we  died,  not  as  the  Authorized  gives  it, 
"we  are  dead."  This  historical  tense  of  the  verb  carries  the 
transaction  back  to  the  death  of  Christ;  which  maybe  dated, 
historically,  from  Calvary,  or  which  is  better,  potentially,  from  the 
day  when  the  promise  of  his  coming  was  first  given.  The  apostle 
teaches  that  Christ  "  bore  our  sins,"  that  "  he  died  for  us,"  that 
is,  "  instead  of  us ;"  that  this  death  was  the  penalty  threatened  in 
the  Garden:  "  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  die, 
shalt  die;"  and  that,  dying  "once  for  all,"  in  virtue  of  his  repre- 
sentative position,  for  us,  he  exhausted  the  claim  of  law,  and 
discharged  us  from  the  penalty.  In  this  literal,  personal  death  of 
Christ,  we,  "  his  members,"  constructively  had  a  part.  "We  died 
with  him,"  and  are  no  longer  obnoxious  to  the  penalty.  Neither 
he,  who  thus,  once  for  all,  died  for  us,  nor  we,  whom  he  repre- 


106  EXPOSITION. 

sented,  and  wlio  died  witli  him,  are  held  to  answer,  a  second  time, 
or  further,  for  the  sin  of  the  race.  A  second  infliction  of  penalty 
for  our  offense  would  violate  equity  in  the  divine  government,  or 
in  any  government. 

There  is  another  word  that  requires  discussion.  Our  text 
reads,  we  died  as  to  sin.  The  word  "sin"  in  this  phrase  is  in  the 
dative  case;  and  the  literal  translation  is  " /o  sin."  And  this 
translation,  which  is  the  usual  one,  is  perhaps  sufficiently  clear. 
But  to  avoid  the  ethical  misconcept,  I  prefer  to  exi)ress  the  dative 
by  the  unequivocally  forensic  phrase  "as  far  as  concerns,"  or 
"  as  regards;"  or,  briefiy,  as  to.  We  have  seen  that  the  apostle's 
concept  in  the  verb  "we  died"  is  that  our  death,  like  Christ's, 
was  literal  and  physical,  such  a  death  as  sunders  the  tie  as  to  every- 
thing around  us.  But  the  apostle's  concept  in  this  saying,  "  we 
died  as  to  siti,"  is  that  we  died  so  far  as  respects  sin ;  only :  and  not 
as  to  other  things:  for  example,  as  to  knowledge,  happiness,  or 
God.  "  We  died,  forensically,  only  as  to  sin."  And  we  can  thus 
best  express  this  Pauline  concept  in  the  saying,  "  we  died  to  sin," 
by  using  the  more  definite  and  exact  prepositional  phrase  "  as  to," 
— "we  died  as  to  sin."  In  the  same  way,  and  with  the  same 
forensic  limitation,  we  read,  "  Christ  died  as  to  sin"  (Rom.  vi,  10)  ; 
we  also  read  further,  "I  died  as  to  law"  (Gal.  ii,  19)  ;  we  also 
read,  "Reckon  yourselves  dead  as  to  sin"  (Rom.  vi,  11)  ;  we  also 
read,  "As  Christ  lives  as  to  God,  so  reckon  ye  yourselves  living  as 
to  God"  (Rom.  vi,  10).  Accordingly  the  saying,  "We  died  as  to 
sin,"  signifies  that  we  died,  forensically,  "as  far  as  regards  sin," 
or  "  in  reference  to  sin,"  that  is,  "  We  bore  the  penalty  as  regards 
sin;  and  so  stand  no  longer  in  any  vital  or  amenable  relation, 
forensically,  as  to  sin,  or,  as  to  the  law  which  takes  cognizance 
of  sin." 

It  is  in  this  same  sense,  expressive  of  foi'ensic  relations  to  law 
and  to  God,  that  Paul  elsewhere  declares:  "For  I  through  law 
died  as  to  law,  that  I  may  live  [have  life]  as  to  God  "  (Gal.  ii,  19), 
that  is,  "Through  my  constructive  death  with  Christ  (in  the 
person  of  Christ),  I  died,  so  far  as  regards  law  (so  far  as  I  stood 
related  to  law),  that,  conversely,  in  my  resurrection  with  Christ 
(in  the  person  of  Christ),  I  may  have  life  as  to  God;"  that  is, 
that  I  may  come,  forensically,  into  new,  vital  relations  with  him. 
It  is  in  this  same  sense  that  Paul  tells  the  Colossians,  "  Ye  died 
with  Christ  (in  the  person  of  Christ),  off  (airb)  from  (or,  as  to)  the 
rudiments  of  the  world."     (Col.  ii,  20.)    It  is  in  this  same  sense 


ROMANS  ri,  3.  197 

that  Peter  says:  "  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  cross, 
that  we,  having  become  off  {airb)  from  (or,  as  to)  the  sins,  may  live 
(have  our  life)  as  to  justification."  (1  Pet.  ii,  24.)  It  is  in  this 
same  sense  tliat,  in  the  after  part  of  this  chapter,  the  apostle  de- 
scribes our  death  os  to  law  (so  far  as  we  were  related  to  law)  under 
the  figure  of  emancipation  from  the  legal  claim  of  sin  (or,  of  the  law 
which  takes  note  of  sin) ;  the  sense  that  he  expresses,  in  the  sev- 
enth chapter,  under  the  figure  of  a  divorce  from  the  legal  claim  of 
sin  ;  that  is,  of  the  law  which  takes  note  of  sin. 

In  the  words  "  we  died  as  to  sin,"  and  the  enlarged  statement 
in  the  eighth  verse,  "  we  died  with  Christ,"  the  apostle  teaches  that 
we  shared  forensically  in  the  death  of  Christ,  wliich  "  he  died  as 
to  sin;"  a  death  which  indeed  is,  after  all,  only  our  own  death, 
and  not  his,  except  as  he  bore  it  vicariously  in  our  stead.  He  died 
for  us,  once  for  all,  not  to  die  again.  Our  death  with  him  acquits 
us,  too,  from  further  penalty. 

That  our  death  to  sin  here  described  is  forensic,  and  not 
ethical,  is  the  testimony  of  our  own  personal  consciousness.  A  be- 
liever may  by  justification  "have  died  as  to  sin,"  that  is,  "off" 
from  his  penal  relations  to  law;  and  have  the  witness  of  God's 
Spirit  to  his  adoption  ;  and  at  the  same  time,  be  abundantly  alive, 
ethically,  to  the  seductiveness  of  sin.  Yet  the  gospel  which  gives 
us  liberty  from  condemnation,  not  only  does  not  give  us  license  to 
sin,  but  gives  us  power  over  it.  Paul  needed  to  tell  the  Galatians, 
"Brethren,  ye  were  called  upon  footing  of  liberty  [from  law]; 
only  use  not  your  liberty  unto  an  occasion  to  the  flesh."  (Gal. 
V,  13.)  So  here,  now,  he  comments  on  the  incongruity  of  a  life  of 
sin  with  a  state  of  forensic  death  as  to  sin.  "  How  inconsistent 
that  we,  who  had  such  a  gracious  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of 
sin,  should  yet  indulge  in  the  sin  that  was  our  ruin !" 

Verse  3.  Or,  do  ye  not  kno"w  that  we,  so  many  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ  Jesus,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 

I  repeat  the  verse,  and  supply  some  words  in  brackets  to  ex- 
press the  meaning  better,  and  to  show  the  logical  connection  of 
the  important  conjunction  or,  whose  presence  in  the  sentence  is 
not  even  noticed  in  the  Authorized:  "  [Died,  I  say]  ;  or  [if  you  do 
not  comprehend  what  ^  dying  as  to  sin'  means],  do  ye  not  know 
that  we,  so  many  as  were  baptized  [initiated,  incorporated]  into 
Christ  Jesus,  were  baptized  into  his  death  [and  all  that  this  vicari- 
ous death  signifies]?" 


198  EXPOSITION. 

The  npostle  liore  turns  nside  from  his  controversy  with  the 
syniigoj^ue  to  address  tlie  Churcli.  Tlie  continued  argumentative 
tone  of  the  jiassage  implies  that  his  hearers  needed  the  elemen- 
tai-y,  yet  profound  h>sson  of  this  chapter.  His  argument  is  an 
"  onponintutn  ad  ho)ni)u')n:"  "  Surely,  believers,  baptized  believers, 
ought  to  know  what  glorious  things  their  baptism  implied."  And 
yet,  while  the  apostle's  woi-ds  take  on,  for  the  moment,  a  tone  of 
animadversion,  we  must  not  understand  that  he  really  thought  the 
Christian  believers  "ignorant"  of  this  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  gospel;  but  in  thus  addressing  them,  he  carries  out  the  line 
and  tone  of  his  argument  against  the  Jew,  the  argument  that  jus- 
tification comes  to  men  from  Christ's  death,  and  that  it  is  for  all 
men. 

The  apostle's  expression  here,  "we,  so  many  as  were  bap- 
tized, seems  to  designate  a  limited  number  only,  wlio  were  incorpo- 
rated into  Christ;  but  this  saying  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  con- 
stant teaching  that  the  gospel  embraces  all  men  indiscriminately. 
The  apostle  here  merely  sliapes  liis  appeal  to  his  immediate  audience 
of  baptized  believers ;  and  he  does  not  exclude  or  forget  the  rest 
of  the  world.  He  knows  of  no  regenerating  or  saving  power  in  any 
ordinance,  or  rite,  ex  opere  operato.  Baptism  is  only  an  appointed 
sign  and  seal  of  our  j)rofession.  It  does  not  make  us  members 
of  Christ,  but  betokens  what  we  all  already  were.  What  he  here 
declares  as  actually  true  of  baptized  believers,  he  holds  equally 
true,  ideally,  of  evei-y  man  born  into  the  world.  Paul  is  not 
sparing  of  explicit  assertions  in  that  direction.  "  His  gospel " 
teaches  that  the  plan  of  redemption,  and  the  actual  u'ork  of  re- 
demption, sweeps  the  whole  circle  of  humanity.  All  men  were 
redeemed,  and  stood,  at  birth,  justified,  regenerate,  united  with 
Christ.  Half  the  whole  number  die  in  infancy,  and  are  saved 
without  faith,  and  without  baptism.  And  adult  believers,  all  of 
whom  are  in  Christ,  potentially,  before  their  conversion  and  pro- 
fession of  faith,  by  their  baptism  only  revive  their  dormant  mem- 
bership in  Christ.  Baptism  does  not  bring  them  into  this  relation  ; 
it  only  proclaims  it;  it  declares  that  the  believers  have  now  come 
to  realize  what  was  already  theirs,  and  to  profess  it  to  the  world. 

Baptism  was  an  old  Jewish  usage,  symbolic  of  tlie  inner  wash- 
ing of  regeneration.  It  was  practiced  by  the  Jews  from  tiie  days 
of  Moses  down;  and  was  afterwards  practiced  by  John,  and  then 
adopted  by  Christ  and  exalted  into  a  Christian  rite,  yet  with  the 
same  symbolism  of  the  washing  of  regeneration.     It  is  the  initial 


ROMANS  VI,  4-  199 

and  the  initiatory  rite  in  the  Christian  Church ;  and  the  word 
baptize,  which  expresses  it,  together  with  the  preposition  into,* 
signifies  merely  the  ritual  initiation  into  a  new  faith,  or  into 
a  person  who  represents  a  faith.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
verse  before  us.  To  be  baptized  into  Christ  means  to  be 
initiated  into  him;  that  is,  into  the  profession  of  Christ,  and 
into  fellowship  with  him.  To  be  baptized  into  his  death 
means  to  be  initiated  into  the  profession  of  faith  in  his  death 
as  a  vicarious  death,  and  into  participation  in  it.  The  sense  of 
"being  baptized  into  Christ,"  that  is,  into  an  appropriation  of 
Christ,  the  apostle  expresses,  elsewhere,  in  other  and  more  defi- 
nite terms:  "As  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into  Christ  put  on 
Christ"  (Gal.  iii,  27),  that  is,  as  the  connection  shows,  "Ye  are 
no  longer  under  law,  but  by  your  baptism,  ye  took  upon  yourselves 
the  obligation  of  allegiance  to  Christ." 

The  thought  of  the  verse  may  be  given  thus:  "Or,  do  ye  not 
know  that  our  initiation  into  Christ,  was  really  an  initiation  into 
his  death,  his  vicarious  death?  '  But  if  we  were  initiated  into  his 
death,  which  was  a  death  forensically,  as  to  sin,  we  certainly  also 
died,  and  died  as  to  sin." 

Verse  4.  We  -were  buried,  therefore,  "with  him,  through 
the  baptism  into  his  death ;  that  just  as  Christ  was  raised 
from  among-  dead  men,  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so 
also  we  may  walk  in  renew^al  of  hfe. 

There  are  several  critical  points  in  this  verse  that  need  dis- 
cussion. 

1.  The  word  therefore  marks  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from 
the  word  death  in  the  previous  verse.  The  order  of  incidents  in 
the  last  days  of  Christ  is,  concisely,  this:  1.  He  was  crucified; 
2.  he  died ;  3.  he  .w^as  buried  ;  4.  he  was  raised ;  5.  he  was  glori- 
fied. In  all  these  things  the  entire  race  which  he  represented  was 
constructively  united  with  him.  We  were  united  with  him  in  the 
same  order  of  events  :  1.  in  his  crucifixion  ;  2.  in  his  death  ;  3.  in 
his  burial :  "  We  died  with  him  ;  therefore  we  were  buried  w^ith 
him."     Upon  this  third  item  out  of  the  five  the  Epistle  here  lays 


*The  formula  of  baptism  in  the  Scripture  always  has  the  preposition 

'■'■into:''''  "Baptize  them  mio  the  name  [profession,  faith]  of  tlie  Father, " 

(Matt,  xxvili,  19.)  Of  course,  the  old  translation  and  the  formula  current 
In  the  Churches,  "  in  the  name,"  which  can  only  mean  "  by  the  authority," 
is  a  mistranslation,  and  loses  the  j^oini  of  the  rite. 


200  ExroaiTios. 

the  stress  of  the  sentence  as  being  the  natural  point  of  transition 
to  the  next  item,  the  fourth,  the  announcement  of  our  resurrec- 
tion with  him,  tlie  grant  of  new  life  instead  of  tliat  whicli  was 
forfeited  in  Adam,  and  which  died  with  Christ  on  the  cross. 

2.  The  statements  tliat  we  were  crucified,  and  that  we  died, 
and  that  we  were  buried,  and  that  we  were  raised,  with  liim,  must 
all  be  taken,  not  in  any  figurative,  or  mjstic,  or  ethical  sense,  but 
as  literally  as  they  are  made  in  regard  to  Christ  himself;  though, 
of  course,  holding  good  of  us,  only  conslruclively .  Christ  repre- 
sented us:  whatever  he  vicariously  did  for  us,  we,  his  clients,  or 
"  members,"  are  held  to  have  done.  Was  Christ  crucified  ?  "  We 
were  crucified  with  him"  (Rom.  vi,6)  ;  Did  Christ  die?  "  We  died 
with  him"  (2  Tim.  ii,  11);  Was  Ciirist  buried  (in  the  tomb  of 
Joseph)?  "  We  were  buried  with  him  "  (Rom.  vi,  4) ;  Was  Christ 
raised?  "We  were  raised  with  liim"  (Col.  ii,  12);  Was  Christ 
glorified?  "We  were  glorified  with  him,"  that  is,  the  provision 
was  then  made  for  our  glorification  (Rom.  viii,  17).  The  assertions 
here  are  all  of  one  gi*eat  historic  fact.  We  look  back  to  Christ's 
death, and  burial, and  resurrection  as  a  thing  that  is  past;  we  look 
back,  too,  to  our  death,  and  burial,  and  resurrection,  construct- 
ively, with  him,  as  a  thing  tliat  is  i)ast — past  for  all  the  race.  It  is 
the  conclusive  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  that  the  race — 
every  individual  of  the  race,  past,  present,  and  to  come — was  in 
union  with  Christ  by  virtue  of  his  vicarious  position.  We  wei'e  all 
crucified  with  Christ,  whether  believers  or  unbelievers ;  we  were 
all  "buried  with  Christ"  where  he  was  buried  (in  the  tomb  of 
Joseph),  whether  baptized  or  unbaptized,  and  we  were  all  raised 
with  him,  whether  sinners  or  saints.  Christ's  death  was  poten- 
tially the  death  of  all  mankind.  We  all  shared  in  all  this.  Just 
as  all  Jews  were  horn  into  membersliip  in  the  theocratic  nation 
and  Church,  and  received  circumcision  only  as  a  token,  but  not  as 
the  conferment  of  this  membership,  so  all  men  are  born  into  mem- 
bership in  Christ's  Church  and  family,  and  receive  baptism  as  a 
token,  but  not  as  a  conferment  of  this  membership.  The  Jews 
were  Jews  by  birth,  and  members  (though  guilty  of  schism)  if  with- 
out circumcision ;  all  Gentiles  are  Christians  by  birth,  and  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  body  (though  guilty  of  schism  in  the  body)  if 
without  baptism.     And  this  includes  us  and  our  children. 

When  the  apostle  says  "we  were  buried  with  him,"  the  word 
conveys  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  much  less  to 
baptism  as  being  by  immersion.    The  woi"ds  "  buried  with  him,"  or 


ROMANS  V.    ir>-21.  201 

more  exactly,  put  in  the  grave  with  him,  are  not  figurative,  but 
literal ;  and  mean  that  we  were  laid  in  the  literal  tomb  of  the 
Arimathean  with  the  dead  body  of  Jesus  (though,  of  course,  only 
constructively).  To  press  the  mode  of  baptism  from  these  words, 
and  to  find  the  proof  of  immersion  in  this  passage  (and  in  the 
parallel  passage  in  Col.  ii,  8-10),  shows  ignorance  of  Greek,  and  of 
the  logical  connection  of  the  passage,  and  of  the  intent  of  the 
Christian  rite.  Such  an  exegesis  wholly  misses  the  point  in  the 
passage.*  j 

3.  The  word  glory  expresses,  apparently,  the  complex  of  all  I 
the  divine  attributes  ;    but  here,  especially,  connotes  power.     It 
is  thus  that  Paul  himself  elsewhere  puts  it:   "  He  lives  from  the 
power-oi  God."     (2  Cor.  xiii,  4.) 

4.  The  expression,  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  renewal  of 
life,  is  more  frequently  translated  "  newness  of  life,"  and  is  usually 
understood  to  mean  an  ethical  or  moral  transformation  in  the  life 
of  the  believer.  But  the  connection  forbids  this  meaning.  The 
"  renewal  of  life  "  in  the  case  of  the  believer  is  the  same  as  in  the 
case  of  Christ ;  and  in  his  case  it  was  not  an  ethical,  moral  revival, 
but  a  literal,  physical  revivescence,  a  coming  to  life  again,  and  a 
resurrection  from  the  dead.  This  sameness  of  meaning  is  con- 
firmed by  the  parallelism  in  this  verse,  and,  especially,  by  the 
terms  of  the  argument  in  the  sixth  verse:  "As  Christ  was  raised 
from  among  dead  men,  so  also  we  (who  were  buried  in  his  grave, 
and  dead,  but  have  now  risen  with  him)  may  henceforth  walk  (go 
on  in  our  new  career)  in  a  renewal  (a  new  grant)  of  life."  This 
change  is  not  subjective,  in  the  sphere  of  religious  experience,  but 

*The  baptism  of  the  apostles  was  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Church  In  the  nineteenth  century;  any  ritual  application  of  water  met 
the  requirements  of  the  case.  Apostolic  baptism  was,  perhaps,  sometimes 
administered  by  immersion  (though  this  is  in  doubt);  but  It  was  also 
administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  (and  this  is  not  in  doubt).  The 
cumulative  argument  for  this  conclusion,  from  Scripture  and  history, 
long  ago  amounted  to  almost  a  demonstration.  But  if  not  thus  settled 
before,  the  recent  "find  "  (1883)  of  "  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles" 
puts  it  now  beyond  gainsaying.  This  book,  which  dates  certainly  not  later 
than  the  year  120,  and  which  some  critics  think  even  earlier  than  John's 
Gospel,  says:  "Baptize  into  the  name  [profession]  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  living  [running?]  water.  But  if  thou 
do  not  have  living  water,  [going]  unto  other  water,  baptize;  but  if  thou 
canst  not  In  cold,  then  In  warm  [standing?].  But  if  thou  have  neither 
[of  these  natural  supplies],  pottr  water  upon  the  head  thrice,  into  the 
name  of  Father,  and  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.''    (Chapter  vii.) 


302  EXPOSITION. 

physical,  objective,  in  the  sphere  of  our  forensic  relations  to  the 
law  of  God.  This  is  the  conception  expressed  by  the  martyrs  in 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees:  "The  king  of  the  world  will  raise  us 
up,  who  died  for  his  law,  unto  an  eternal  revivification  of  life."  ■■ 
It  is  the  conception  which  Ignatius  expresses  in  his  letter  to  the 
Ephesians:  "God  himself  was  manifested  in  the  form  of  a  man 
unto  a  renewal  of  eternal  life"  (Ign.  Eph.  iv,  13)— the  same  Greek 
word  as  in  our  text.t  It  is  the  same  concept  as  Paul  expresses 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians:  "  I  have  been  put  to  death  on  the 
cross;  but  it  is  no  longer  I  (in  my  own,  old  self)  that  live,  but 
Christ  lives  in  me ;  but  the  life  which  I  now  live  (in  my  new  self)  in 
the  flesh  I  live  in  virtue  of  my  faith  in  the  Son  of  God"  (Gal.  ii, 
20) ;  and  again  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians:  "  For  ye  died,  and 
your  life  has  been  liidden  (wrapped  up)  with  Christ  in  God"  (Col. 
iii,3). 

This  "renewal  (or  new  grant)  of  life,"  through  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  was  historically  complete  for  the  race,  from  the  first. 
Such  is  the  nature  of  justification,  a  purely  legal  work.  As  sin, 
and  death  from  sin,  were  complete  at  the  first,  and  did  not  come 
upon  the  race  by  degi-ees,  so  this  countervailing  work  of  Christ 
did  not  come  by  degrees,  but  was  accomplished  in  a  moment. 
"  We  died  in  Adam"  (1  Cor.  xv,  22),  that  is,  became  amenable  to 
the  penalty  of  death;  "we  died,  too,  with  Christ"  (Rom.  vi,  8), 
that  is,  bore  the  i)enalty ;  and  we  were  raised  with  him  to  a  full 
and  eternal  life.  The  sin,  and  the  justification  from  sin,  are  ac- 
complished historical  facts.  This  is  all  that  the  apostle  has  yet 
affirmed,  or  needed  to  affirm  in  his  present  discussion  as  to  the 
grounds  of  justification,  whether  by  law  or  by  faith. 

We  must  discriminate,  in  our  exegesis,  and  in  our  theology, 
between  the  forensic  "renewal  of  life"  here  described,  which 
comes  comi)lete  from  the  first,  from  justification  in  Christ,  and 
tlie  religious  life,  or  holiness;  that  is  a  growth,  coming  from  the 
believer's  consecration  of  himself,  and  struggles  to  realize  in 
liimself  the  image  of  God.  Tliis  life  of  sanctitication  is  never 
God's  gift,  but  is  always  (with  God's  help)  man's  own  achieve- 
ment. The  believer  is  commanded  "Work  out  your  salvation." 
"  Ye  shall  be  holy." 


*■  (ts  aiuiviov  Avapiuxriv  ^wrjs  v^as  avaffTififfei,  (2  Mace.  vU,  9). 
t  ets  Kaiv6TT}Ta  aidiov  fwjjs   (Ign.  Eph.  19). 


ROMANS  VI,  5.  203 

Verse  5.  For  if  we  have  become  united  with  him 
in  the  sameness  with  his  death,  nay,  but  we  shall  be 
[united  with  him  in  the  sameness]  also  with  his  resur- 
rection. 

The  conjunction  for  introduces  a  reason,  and  further  explana- 
tion of  the  statement  in  the  previous  verse.  The  conjunction  if 
is  the  word  of  hypothesis,  and  not  of  contingency:  the  verb  in  tlie 
clause  is  in  the  indicative  mode ;  and  the  point  expressed  is  as- 
sumed as  a  fact ;  and  the  thought  might  be  equally  well  expressed 
by  the  conjunction  "  since  "— "  since  we  have  become  united  with 
him."  The  word  united  o-i^/x^urot  is,  more  literally,  grown  together, 
coalescent.  The  old  translation,  "  planted  together,"  is  not  tlie 
figure  employed,  and  is  wholly  aside  from  the  just  meaning.  If 
we  must  harness  up  a  metaphor,  it  is  not  that  of  putting  the  roots 
of  two  plants  into  one  pot,  but  of  engrafting  one  plant  into  the 
other.  The  real  concept  of  the  word  is  of  the  union  or  incorpora- 
tion of  the  believer,  and  of  all  men  with  Christ.  "We  are 
members  of  his  body ;"  and,  as  a  doubtful  (but  evangelically 
true)  reading,  adds,  "  we  are  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones." 
(Eph.v,30.) 

The  Greek  word  ofxoiwfia,  which  is  represented  in  the  Authorized 
and  the  Revised  by  the  word  "  likeness,"  means  sameness.  The 
word  "likeness"  yields  here  no  appropriate  sense,  indeed  is 
destitute  of  sense.  The  death  of  Christ,  and  the  death  of  "  his 
members,"  were  not  like,  or  similar,  to  each  other  (as  if— which 
is  probably  the  meaning  most  people  read  into  it — Christ's  death 
was  a  physical  one,  and  ours  a  figurative  or  mystical  one) ,  but  they 
were  the  same  death.  We  both  died  a  literal  death  on  the  cross, 
he  actually,  we  constructively.  He  assumed  our  place  forensically  ; 
lie  bore  our  penalty  and  "  died  for  us,"  "  in  our  stead  ;"  and  we 
have  become  united  with  him,  by  a  death  such  as  his,  that  is, 
in  the  sameness  with  his  death. 

The  apodosis  in  this  verse  is  connected  back  with  the  protasis 
by  the  strong  adversative  conjunction— nay,  but—.  This  conjunc- 
tion suggests  the  supply  of  a  restrictive  clause:  ["  that  is  not  all], 
nay,  but—;"  and  the  rest  of  the  apodosis  can  best  be  expressed  by 
an  additional  supply,  as  given  in  the  text.  The  full  thought  is: 
"Not  only  have  we  come  into  union  with  him  by  dying  the  same 
death  with  him,  nay,  but  we  shall  be  united  with  him  in  the  same- 


20-t  EXPOSITION. 

ness  with  his  resurrection."  Tliose  last  words  repeat  the  thought 
of  tiie  last  words  in  the  fourth  verse,  "  a  renewal  of  life,"  and 
confirm  the  exi)lanati()n  there  given. 

Our  resurrection,  in  the  legal  assurance  of  it,  was  simultaneous 
with  that  of  Clirist.  And  so  Paul  says:  "God  made  us  alive  with 
Christ,  and  raised  us  up  with  him"  (E|)h.  ii,  4)  ;  "  God  who  raised 
Christ  from  the  dead,  raised  you  up  with  him"  (Col.  ii,  12).  Hut 
here  he  uses  the  future  tense  of  the  verb,  we  shall  be  united 
with  him;  that  is,  the  union  with  Christ,  now  forensically  ours, 
will  be  e.xperimentally  realized  in  the  distant  future,  in  the  great 
resurrection,  at  the  last  day.  What  has  thus  been  accomplished 
here,  though  as  yet  only  constructively,  potentially,  will  be  liter- 
ally, fully,  consummated  in  the  last  day. 

Verse  6.  Knowing  this,  that  ovir  old  man  was  cruci- 
fied [put  to  death  on  the  cross]  with  him,  that  the  body  of 
the  sin  may  be  done  aw^ay  with;  that  we  may  no  longer 
be  slaves  as  to  the  sin. 

There  are  two  distinct  words  of  frequent  occurrence  that  the 
Authorized  and  the  Revised  fail  to  discriminate — yivuffKovres  in  this 
verse,  and  eldSres  in  the  ninth  verse.  The  former  means  "coming 
to  know,"  "  noting,"  "  taking  into  thought,"  and  the  latter  "  being 
aware  of,"  "  knowing."  The  apostle  here  means  noting,  taking 
into  consideration,  and  the  expression  is  logically  equivak'Ut  to 
the  conjunction  "because,"  and  justifies  the  affirmation  in  the 
preceding  verse:  "  We  shall  share  in  his  resurrection,  because  our 
old  man  was  crucified  [put  to  death  on  the  cross]  with  him." 

Oxir  old  man.  Paul  has  various  figurative  phrases  to  express 
various  phases  of  human  nature.  He  puts  in  antithesis  "  The  old 
man,"  and  "the  new  man"  (Kph.  iv,  24);  "the  outward  man" 
(2  Cor.  iv,  16),  and  "  the  inward  man  "  (Rom.  vii,  22).  The  phrase 
"  our  old  man  "—that  is,  "our  former  self" — expresses  our  human 
nature  in  its  degenerate,  unregcncrate  state,  as  offspring  of  Adam  ; 
what  we  were  conceptually,  by  nature,  or  heredity,  before  Christ 
took  our  nature  upon  himself.  "The  new  man" — that  is,  "our 
after  self" — expresses  our  human  nature  in  its  regenerate  state, 
as  members  of  Christ's  body ;  what  we  became  when  Christ  as- 
sumed our  nature  and  redeemed  it.  In  a  similar  antithesis,  though 
not  identical  with  the  above,  Paul  contrasts  "the  animal  man" 
and  "the  spiritual  man"  (1  Cor.  ii,  14),  and  "the  fleshly  man" 
and  "the  spiritual  man"  (1  Cor.  iii,  1).     And  again,  with  a  yet 


ROMANS  VI,  6.  205 

different  antithesis,  lie  contrasts  "the  animal  body"  of  this  life 
with  "  the  spiritual  body"  of  the  resui-rection  life.  (ICor.  xv,44.) 
The  teaching  of  our  present  passage  is  this:  that  "our  old  man," 
our  degenerate  human  nature  as  inherited  from  Adam,  "  was  cru- 
cified with  Christ,"  that  is,  was  literally  (thougli  only  construct- 
ively) put  to  death  on  the  cross  with  him,  in  order  that  thereby 
this  same  body  of  sin,  this  sin-tainted  humanity  of  ours,  may  in 
his  person  suffer  the  penalty  of  death,  and  so  be  done  a"way 
with  (still  constructively)  ;  and  that  thus  we  may  no  longer  be 
slaves  (forensically,  not  ethically)  as  to  the  power  and  condemna- 
tion of  sin.  "The  body  of  sin"  does  not  mean,  as  sometimes 
explained,  "  the  totality,  or  mass,  of  sin,"  which  wholly  misses  the 
point.  The  word  "body"  is  to  be  taken  literally  of  our  human 
nature;  though,  of  course,  the  saying,  as  a  wliole,  is  only  con- 
structively realized.  The  qualifying  phrase,  "of  sin,"  is  adjec- 
tive to  the  word  "body;"  though  not  quite  equivalent  to  the 
adjective  "sinful,"  as  that  concept  of  the  body  is  not  found  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  expression,  "body  of  sin,"  means  "belonging  to 
the  domain  of  sin,"  "penetrated  with  sin,"  "rotten  with  sin." 
The  apostle's  concept  of  the  "  body  of  sin  "  is  otherwise  variously 
expressed;  he  calls  it  "a  mortal  body"  (Rom.  vi,  12),  "  this  body 
of  death"  (Rom.  vii,  22),  and  "a  body  of  flesh"  (with  the  impli- 
cation of  carnalness)  (Col.  i,  22). 

The  figure  expressed  by  the  words  slaves  as  to  sin  is  a 
strong  and  effective  one ;  but  much  more  realistic  to  the  Romans 
of  that  day  than  even  to  us.  The  city  of  Rome  was  full  of  slaves. 
Probably  many  of  those  Cliristians  whom  the  apostle  addressed 
had  themselves  been  slaves,  or  still  w^ere  so.  Ancient  slavery  had 
few  of  the  restraints  that  Christianity  has  brought  with  it ;  yet 
often  the  tenderest  ties  bound  master  and  slave  together.  Cicero 
made  his  slave  (but  afterwards  his  freedman).  Tiro,  liis  confidant, 
his  correspondent,  his  literary  executor.  Slaves  were  usually  of 
as  good  stock  as  their  masters,  and  when  manumitted  could  be- 
come their  civil  and  social  peers.  In  the  times  of  the  Empire, 
many  slaves,  the  favorites  of  their  lords,  rose  to  high  positions 
and  enormous  wealth ;  for  example.  Narcissus,  the  freedman  of 
the  Emperor  Claudius  (Rom.  xvi,  11),  and  Felix,  who  also  was  a 
freedman  of  Claudius,  the  infamous  procurator  of  Judea  (Acts 
xxiii,24),  "  the  husband  of  three  queens"  (Seutonius,  "Claudius," 
28).  The  Jewish  captives  whom  Pompey  carried  slaves  to  Rome 
(B.  C.  63)  were  three  freed  {liberti),  and  tlieir  descendants  (liber- 


206  EXPOSITION. 

titii)  were  numerous,  and  rich,  and  influential.  They  had  as  many 
as  nine  synagogues  in  Rome,  and  a  h-ading  synagogue  in  Jerusalem 
("Synagogue  of  the  Libertines,"  Aets  vi,  9).  Tliis  social  institu- 
tion Paul  met  with  everywhere  throughout  the  Roman  Empire; 
and  he  refers  to  it,  either  literally  or  figuratively,  in  every  one  of 
his  letters.  In  some  of  these  letters,  this  institution  furnished, 
next  to  marriage,  or  even  before  marriage,  the  most  forcible  illus- 
tration that  he  could  employ  of  man's  tie  to  sin  or  of  his  tie  to 
Christ.  It  is  so  in  this  Epistle.  He  makes  much  of  this  figure  of 
slavery  in  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter;  and  he  makes  much  of 
the  other  strong  figure,  of  marriage,  in  the  seventh  chapter. 

Verse  7.  For  he  that  died  has  been  justified  from  the 
sin. 

The  conjunction  for,  as  always,  introduces  a  confirmation  of 
the  preceding  statement.  It  is,  of  course,  the  forensic  concept 
that  we  must  read  into  the  words.  The  old  translation  of  the 
verse  (which  is  not  a  translation) :  "  He  that  is  dead  is  freed  from 
sin,"  does  not  seize  the  apostle's  thought.  The  popular  under- 
standing of  the  apostle's  words  is  that  "the  power  of  sinning 
is  lost  at  death,"  or  that  "death  wipes  out  all  accounts."®  But 
the  apostle's  sense  is  that  he  that  died  (with  Christ),  as  to 
sin  (and  thus  iuis  once  suffered  tiie  penalty),  has  thereby  been 
acquit  from  the  guilt  of  sin.  It  is  the  same  concei)t  that  Peter 
expresses  thus:  "Christ,  therefore,  having  suffered  [liaving  died 
for  you]  as  to  flesh,  arm  yourselves  also  with  tlie  same  thought; 
because  he  that  has  suffered  in  the  flesh  [that  has  died  with  Christ, 
as  to  sin],  has  ceased  from  sin"  (that  is,  not  ethically,  not  from 
proclivity  to  sin,  or  even  sometimes  not  from  actual  sin,  but 
forensically)  ;  from  obnoxiousness  to  its  penalty.  (1  Pet.  iv,  1.) 
The  penalty  will  not  be  exacted  a  second  time. 

Verse  8.  But  if  we  died  -with  Christ,  -we  believe  that  we 
shall  also  live  w^ith  him. 

The  hypothetical  conjunction  if,  with  the  indicative  mode  of 
the  verb,  expresses  an  assumed  fact — "  Since  we  died  with  Christ, 
wo  believe  that  we  shall  also  have  life  with  him."  The  woi-d 
believe  may  be  equally  well,  or  better,  expressed  by  the  literal 
translation,  we  have  faith — the  assured  conviction.     And  the 


<"As  Shakespeare  says,  "He  that  dies  pays  all  debts."    (Tempest  III, 
HI,  12-1.) 


ROMANS  IT.    9, 10.  207 

verb,  shall  live  with  him,  means  more  than  that  we  are  to 
be  his  companions,  and  share  the  joys  of  his  presence  (though  all 
this  is  true :  "  Where  I  am,  there  ye  shall  be  also  ")  ;  but  the  word 
infinitely  transcends  this  notion  of  "having  a  good  time"  here- 
after; it  expresses  tlie  grander  concept  that  "  our  death  will  be 
swallowed  up  by  life  "  (2  Cor.  v,  4)  ;  "As  the  last  enemy,  death,  is 
done  away  with"  (1  Cor.  xv,  26).  The  emphasis  is  on  the  word 
live.  "We  are  to  have  life  with  him  forever;"  and  this  thought 
reaches  the  triumphant  climax  in  the  next  three  verses. 

Verse  9.  Knowing-  that  Christ,  having  been  raised  from 
among  dead  men,  no  more  dies;  death  no  longer  lords  it 
over  him. 

The  emphasis  is  on  Christ  as  standing  in  antithesis  to  we  in 
the  previous  verse.  "Christ  no  more  dies,"  that  is,  "Having 
died  as  to  the  sin,  once  for  all "  (verse  10) ,  "  he  has  obtained  eternal 
redemption,"  and  need  not  die  again  ;  death  no  longer  lords  it 
over  him.  And,  glorious  consummation!  if  not  over  him,  then 
not  over  us,  who  died  with  him.  So  Peter  says:  "Christ  once  for 
all  suffered  [died]  for  sins,  a  just  man  in  the  place  of  unjust  men, 
that  he  might  bring  us  to  God."  (1  Pet.  iii,  18.)  So  the  writer  of 
"Hebrews:"  "Christ  once  for  all  having  been  offered  to  take 
away  the  sins  of  many,  will  appear  a  second  time,  apart  from  sin 
[not  obnoxious  to  its  penalty]."     (Heb.  ix,  28.) 

Verse  10.  For  the  death  that  he  died,  he  died  as  to  the 
sin,  once  for  all ;  but  the  life  that  he  lives,  he  lives  as  to  God. 

The  Greek  sentence  is  an  illustration  of  the  terseness  of  an 
inflected  language,  and  of  this  language  above  all.  The  English 
sentence  here  has  twenty-six  words ;  the  Greek  contents  itself 
with  just  thirteen  ;  and  of  tliese,  eight  are  sufficient  as  the  vehicle 
of  the  thought.  "  What  he  died,  he  died  to  sin;  tuhat  he  lives, 
he  lives  to  God." 

When  it  is  said  tliat  Christ  died  as  to  sin,  it  does  not  mean 
that  he  became  insensate,  apathetic,  to  its  seductions,  unsuscepti- 
ble to  its  allurements ;  for  in  this  ethical  sense,  Christ  never  was 
"alive,"  or  prepense,  to  sin,  as  other  men.  "  He  was  holy,  harm- 
less, undefiled,  separate  from  the  sinful."  (Heb.  vii,  26.)  The 
saying  is  purely  forensic  ;  it  means  that  he,  the  Sacrifice  for  sinners, 
"died  on  the  cross,  as  regards  sin  [that  is,  tlte  penally  of  sin]"  ;  so 
that  he  had  thereafter  notliing  more  to  do  with  it ;   he  ceased  to 


208  EXPOSITION. 

be  lield  for  its  penalty  ;  which  is  nil  the  relation  that  he  ever  bore 
to  it. 

Conversely,  when  it  is  said  tliat  He  lives  as  to  God,  the  say- 
ing can  not  mean  that  he  has  become  etliically  suscej)tive  to  God's 
quickening  power,  aj^^low  with  a  new  love,  whicii  he  has  not  felt 
before.  All  this  teiidt-r,  intimate,  spiritual  relation  with  God  we 
must  postulate  as  essential  to  our  concept  of  Christ,  and  as  always 
having  been  his.  This  expression,  too,  is  forensic;  and  is  spoken 
from  the  standpoint  of  Christ's  mediatorial  work,  by  which  he  died 
in  the  place  of  man,  as  the  penalty  of  law.  "  It  behooved  him  to 
die ;"  but  he  could  not  be  held  by  the  bonds  of  death  ;  for  "  it  be- 
hooved him  also  to  rise."  He  rose  with  a  "  renewal  of  life,"  to  die 
no  more;  and  "he  lives  now  in  relation  to  God,"  "  with  this  life 
which  he  had  with  the  Father,  before  the  world  was." 

Verse  11.  Thus  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
indeed  as  to  sin,  but  living  as  to  God,  in  Jesus  Christ. 

This  verse  is  the  proper  apodosis  of  the  ninth  verse.  We  there 
read:  "Death  no  longer  lords  it  over  him;"  and  now  the  apostle 
adds,  as  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter:  "In  the  same 
manner  reckon  ye,  yourselves  also  dead  as  to  sin.  Ye  died 
with  Christ ;  inasmuch,  therefore,  as  ye  died  with  iiis  death,  as  to 
sin,  count  yourselves  dead,  not  in  any  mystical  or  figurative  sense 
of  the  word  'dead,'  but  in  literal  fact."  For,  of  course,  the  death 
of  man  as  to  sin,  and  the  living  of  man  as  to  God,  is  the  same  as 
in  the  case  of  Christ,  which  was  not  figurative,  but  literal ;  not  eth- 
ical, but  foi'ensic.  Christ  and  man  have  both  come,  in  the  same 
sense,  into  new,  vital,  and  eternal  relations  with  God.  The  last 
phrase,  in  Christ  Jesus,  does  not  mean  through  Christ,  though 
that  is  also  true.  But  that  meaning  does  not  line  up  with  the 
apostle's  concept  here.  The  concept  of  " our  being  in  Christ"  is, 
that  we  are  incorporate  witli  him,  in  his  person,  members  of  his 
spiritual  body.  "We,  the  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ."  (Rom. 
xii,  5.) 

Verse  12.  Let  not  sin,  therefore,  reign  in  your  mortal 
body,  that  ye  should  obey  its  lusts. 

The  word  therefore  marks  the  logical  connection  of  the 
thought.  It  is  as  if  the  apostle  had  said,  "The  intent  and  tendency 
of  your  justification  is,  not  to  license  sin,  but  to  lead  you  to  holi- 
ness.    As  justified  men,  count  yourselves  dead,  forensically,  as  to 


ROMANS  VI,  12.  209 

sin;  and,  therefore,  as  the  practical  moral  lesson  tlierefrom,  do  not 
let  your  daily  life  be  incongruous  with  your  profession.  Liberty 
is  not  license.  'Justification  is  with  a  view  to  sanctification' 
(Rom.  vi,  19)  ;  '  Glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your  spirit, 
wliich  are  his'  (1  Cor.  vi,  20);  'Cleanse  yourselves  from  all 
pollution  of  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  fear  of  God' " 
(2Cor.  vii,  1). 

In  this  verse,  for  the  first  time  in  the  Epistle,  Paul  leaves  the 
legal  discussion  of  the  subject  before  him,  if  only  for  a  moment, 
to  suggest  a  practical,  moral,  lesson.  The  digression  is  short;  and 
in  the  fifteenth  verse  he  returns  to  the  legal  phase  of  the  discussion. 

Paul  calls  the  body  the  mortal  body,  but  he  never  applies 
the  adjective  "  sinful"  to  it.  The  body  is  not  the  seat  of  sin,  which 
is  in  the  will.  But  the  body  is  the  seat  of  the  appetites  and  pas- 
sions ;  and  on  its  sensuous  side,  as  "  the  flesh,"  it  is  the  abundant 
occasion  and  instrument  of  sin.  "The  flesh  lusteth  against  the 
spirit."  The  desires  (or  appetites  and  instincts)  are  natural,  and 
in  their  normal  action  are  not  sinful.  When  an  illicit  object  is 
presented  to  the  appetites,  the  emotion  which  it  excites  is  still 
natural,  normal,  and  within  the  limit  of  innocence.  So  far,  the 
action  of  the  soul  is  ethically  right.®  But  let  the  tempted  man 
now  beware.  He  has  come  to  the  dividing  of  the  ways  ;  if  he 
listens  to  the  song  of  the  siren,  if  he  dallies  with  the  impure 
thought,  he  has  passed  the  line  of  innocence.  It  is  tims  tliat 
James  traces  the  growth  of  sin:  "Each  man  is  tempted  (that  is 
tested),  when  he  is  enticed  by  his  desires.  (Thus  far,  the  motion  is 
natural  and  innocent.)  Then  the  desire,  having  conceived,  bear- 
eth  sin,  but  sin,  when  completed,  brings  forth  death."    (James  i,  15.) 

The  word  mortal  does  not  describe  the  original  or  essential 
character  of  the  body.  Man  was  not  created  mortal,  nor  yet  was 
he  created  definitively  immortal,  in  himself.  Which  he  should  be, 
depended  on  the  Divine  will ;  and  the  Divine  will  was  contingent 
on  man's  obedience.  The  law  commanded,  "  Tliis  do,  and  live;" 
but  contrariwise,  it  is  also  said,  "In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  die."  The  word  "mortal"  here  suggests  that  sin 
wrought  death  in  our  body  ;  and  gives  point  to  the  injunction, 
"  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your  body,  which  .this  sin  itself  made  mortal." 


Evil  Into  the  mind  of  God  and  man 

May  come  and  go,  so  unapproved,  and  leave 

No  spot  or  blame  behind." — Paradise  Lust,  V,  117. 

14 


210  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  13.  Nor  yet  yield  your  members  to  the  sin,  in- 
struments of  unrighteousness ;  nay,  but  yield  yourselvec 
to  God,  as  if  living  from  among  dead  men,  and  your  mem- 
bers to  God,  instruments  of  justification. 

By  members,  Paul  means,  first,  the  physical  organs  of  the 
body.  "The  body  is  one;  and  it  has  many  members."  (1  Cor. 
xii,  12.)  But  more  than  the  organs  of  the  body,  he  intends  tlie 
faculties  of  mind  and  soul,  in  whose  moral  determination  to  right 
or  wrong  consists  the  character  of  the  man.  The  word  translated 
instruments  is  literally  "arms,"  "weapons,"  as  if  so  called, 
figuratively,  in  a  military  sense.  But  the  apostle's  concept  is 
more  nearly  that  of  slavery  ;  which  is  the  illustration,  or  figure, 
used  by  him,  throughout  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  According  to 
this  concept,  man  is  a  slave, — either  the  slave  of  sin,  or  the  slave 
of  God,  or  (as  the  apostle  varies  his  expression)  slave  of  justifica- 
tion. The  word  for  "arms"  is  better  expressed,  therefore,  by  the 
depreciatory  term  "  tools,"  or  "thralls,"  which  may  be  interi)reted, 
for  better  or  for  worse,  to  suit  the  varying  aspects  of  the  two 
clauses:  "Do  not  give  up  your  members  to  sin  as  tools,  abject 
thralls  of  unrighteousness  (non-justification)  but  give  yourselves 
to  God  as  instruments,  willing  subjects  of  justification."  The  first 
verb  yield  is  in  the  present  tense,  the  tense  of  continued  action  ; 
the  second  is  in  the  aorist  tense,  of  instant  action.  We  may,  per- 
haps, express  this  difference  by  saying,  "  Do  not  forever  yield  your 
members  to  sin  ;  but  yield  yourselves  to  God  at  once." 

Perhaps,  however,  we  may  take  the  phi-ases  of  unrighteous- 
ness and  of  justification  as  adjective  elements,  dericribing  or 
characterizing  the  substantive  "instruments;"  as  if  the  meaning 
were  "  instruments  whose  character  is  that  of  non-justification," 
in  the  one  case,  or  "  of  justification,"  in  the  other. 

Verse  14.  For  sin  will  not  lord  it  over  you ;  for  ye  are 
not  under  law,  but  under  grace. 

The  apostle's  thought  is,  that  hitherto,  in  the  era  of  law,  sin 
has  been  the  lord  of  the  race ;  its  fetters  on  every  soul.  Hence- 
forth, in  the  era  of  grace,  the  sway  of  sin  is  broken.  The  Law  was 
a  law  of  condemnation  ;  you  could  not  find  deliverance  through 
law.  But  Christ's  death  has  delivered  you  from  the  law.  The 
scepter  is  now  in  other  hands ;  you  are  not  under  lordship  of  law, 
but  of  grace.  "By  grace  ye  have  been  justified;"  and  sin  will 
no  longer  have  you  in  subjection  to  itself  and  to  death.    The  line 


ROMANS  VI.    15,  16.  211 

of  thought  is  forensic:  there  is  no  exhortation  to  holiness;  but 
only  a  declaration  that  believers  are  not  held  under  the  condem- 
natory dominion  of  sin  ;  they  are  Christ's  freedmen.  That  this  is 
the  meaning  is  shown  by  the  next  verse:  "  Shall  w^e  sin,  because 
we  are     .     .     .     under  grace?" 

Verse  15a.  Jew:  "What  then?  Shall  "we  sin,  because 
■we  are  not  under  la"w,  but  under  grace? 

The  sentiment,  as  in  the  first  verse,  is  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  Jew,  the  gainsayer  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  of  justification 
from  faith.  The  objection  in  the  first  verse  and  the  objection  in 
this  verse  express  the  two  forms  of  Antinomian  abuse  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Grace.  Both  objections  assume  that,  since  the  penalty  of 
law  is  canceled,  law  itself  is  abrogated  ;  and  that  we  now  have 
license  to  do  as  we  list.  Sin  ceases  to  be  reprehensible,  and  we 
may  have  its  pleasures  here  without  its  penalties  hereafter.  The 
suggestion  in  the  first  verse  is  that,  under  the  gospel  scheme, 
which  frees  us  from  the  Law,  we  may  remain  in  sin,  in  order  that 
free  Grace  may  yet  more  abound, — and  so  cumulatively  conduce 
to  yet  more  license.  This  suggestion  the  apostle,  in  verses  2-14, 
has  I'ejected  as  a  hideous  incongruity :  the  justified  ought  also 
to  be  regenerate  and  holy.  The  suggestion  in  the  fifteenth  verse 
substantially  repeats  the  former  suggestion  that,  because  we  are 
under  a  scheme  of  Grace,  we  may  at  least  sin  at  discretion,  in 
single  instances, — as  is  implied  by  the  aorist  tense.  But  this 
modified  suggestion  also  the  apostle  rejects  as  peremptorily  as  the 
first ;  because  it  would  be  presumption  on  God's  forbearance,  and 
would  again  bring  us  under  slavery  to  sin  and  amenableness  to  its 
penalties. 

Verses  156,  16.  Paul:  God  forbid!  Do  ye  not  know- 
that  to  -whom  ye  yield  yourselves  slaves,  with  a  view  to 
obedience,  slaves  ye  are  of  him  w^hom  ye  obey?  whether 
of  sin — unto  death  ?  or  of  obedience — unto  justification  ? 

The  paragraph  ought  to  include  the  last  words  of  verse  15, 
God  forbid  !  and  the  objurgative  tone  of  those  words  is  continued 
in  the  sixteenth  verse. 

The  phraseology  for  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  borrowed  from 
the  system  of  slavery.  For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  the 
apostle  assumes  that  all  men  are  slaves.  They  are  slaves  of  the 
one  or  of  the  other  of   two  masters ;  there  is  no  third.     These 


212  EXPOSITION. 

masters,  whom  he  licre  names  Sin  and  Obedience,  but  afterwai-ds 
"Sin"  and  "  Justilication  "  (verse  18),  are  in  utter  antagonism, 
etliicallj',  no  doubt,  but  here  they  are  eonlrasted  forensically. 
The  service  of  the  one  is  incompatible  with  the  service  of  the 
other:  "No  man  can  serve  these  two  masters."  "He  will  love 
one,  and  hate  the  other."  But,  unlike  the  slaves  of  men  in  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world,  the  slaves  of  either  master  here,  in  Paul's 
commonwealth,  may  choose  which  one  he  will  serve;  and,  again, 
unlike  the  slaves  of  men,  he  may  change  his  masters  at  his  own 
discretion.  But  he  must  serve  one  or  the  other:  when  emanci- 
pated from  one  master,  he  by  that  very  fact  becomes  enslaved  to 
the  other.  Such  is  tlie  scheme  of  slavery,  as  Paul  conceives  it,  in 
the  domain  of  spiritual  law.  This  figure  of  slavery  is  found  in  all 
literature ;  and  is  especially  suitable  to  religious  conceptions. 
Christ  says:  "Every  one  who  commits  sin  is  slave  of  sin"  (John 
viii,35);  and  Peter  says:  "Seducers  promise  liberty  to  others, 
themselves  being  slaves  of  corruption ;  for  by  what  one  has  been 
overcome,  to  this  he  has  also  been  enslaved  "  (2  Pet.  ii,  19). 

The  prepositional  phrases  here  translated  unto  death— unto 
justification  might  be  rendered  "  tending  unto  death  ;"  or  perhaps 
better,  with  a  bolder  rhetorical  effect,  we  may  read  them  as  inter- 
jectional  expressions  of  what  the  contrasted  courses  amount  to — 
"  unto  death ! "  "  unto  justification  !  " 

DcatlL  here,  as  always  when  used  of  the  penalty  of  sin,  means 
pliysical  death;  and  physical  death,  if  not  "abolished"  (2  Tim. 
i,  10),  is  an  eternal  death,  the  dread  end  of  man's  being.  The 
apostle  uses  the  word  justification  here  as  the  opposite  of 
"death,"  where  we  might  rather  have  expected  him  to  use  the 
word  "  life."  But  this  latter  word  is  substantially  the  apostle's 
thought.  Justification,  the  acquittal  from  the  death  penalty,  is 
tantamount  to  a  restoration  to  life.  The  concept,  indeed,  is  some- 
times expressed  in  full  by  using  both  words:  "The  result  was  to 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life"  (Rom.  v,  18);  "The  spirit  is 
life  [alive]  on  account  of  justification"  (Rom.  viii,  10).  In  fact, 
this  is  always  the  implication  in  the  word  "justification."  Life 
eternal  is  enfolded  in  God's  sentence  of  acquittal  from  death. 

Verse  17.  But  thanks  be  to  God  that  ye  were  slaves 
of  the  sin,  but  obeyed  from  the  heart  the  type  of  doctrine 
into  which  ye  were  delivered. 

The  first  clause  expi'esses  not  so  much  the  historic  fact  that 
the  believers  had  been  slaves  of  sin,  and  Paul's  thanks  to  God  for 


ROMANS  VI,  17.  213 

that  fact,  as  rather  the  fact  that  this  slavery  is  now  a  thing  of  the 
past.  This  is  a  common  rhetorical  form.  Vergil  says,  "  Fuimus 
Troes,  fait  Ilium,"  "  We  were  Trojans  ;  Troy  ^vas  "  (iEneid  II,  325) , 
implying  that  the  whole  thing  is  now  ended.  The  two  co-ordinate 
clauses  could  be  translated  more  logically  in  close  coherence,  as  if 
one  complex  proposition:  "Thank  God,  that,  though  ye  were  once 
slaves  of  sin,  ye  obeyed  from  the  heart."  The  Revised  has  this 
construction  of  the  sentence  ;  but  uses  the  wi-ong  word  "  whereas," 
instead  of  "though,"  as  if  the  apodosis  expressed  a  consequence 
of  the  protasis. 

The  expression  slaves  of  sin  does  not  mean  that  they  were 
once  abandoned  sinners  morally  ;  but  that  they  were  conceptually 
under  bondage  forensically  to  law,  which  takes  cognizance  of  sin ; 
and  that  they  then  looked  to  works  of  law  for  justification.  A 
change  took  place  in  their  views  when  they  embraced  the  gospel 
scheme  of  justification  from  faith.  They  obeyed  the  gospel 
from  the  heart,  that  is,  with  conviction  of  its  truth ;  and  they 
were  given  over,  or  inducted  into  a  very  different  type  of  doctrine 
from  that  w^hich  they  before  held.  The  thought  is  the  same  as  the 
apostle  expresses  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians:  "The  Scripture 
shut  up  [counted]  all  mankind  under  sin,  that  the  promise  from 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ  may  be  given  to  them  that  have  faith.  But 
before  the  [dispensation  of]  faith  came,  we  were  kept,  shut  up,  in 
word,  under  law,  with  a  view  to  the  faith  that  was  to  be  revealed." 
(Gal.  iii,  22.)  The  words  ye  obeyed  that  type  of  doctrine  do 
not  express  amoral  transformation  of  character,  a  spiritual  regen- 
eration; but  a  change  of  conviction  and  of  attitude,  a  transition 
or  turning  (which  the  English  Scriptures  and  theological  literature 
name  "conversion")  from  one  creed  to  another,  from  Mosaism 
and  works  of  law  to  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  the  law  of  faith.  It 
was  into  this  new  type  of  doctrine  that  they  were  now  delivered, 
or  "given  over,"  as  the  new  form  or  law  of  religious  belief. 

I  repeat  the  caution  against  the  interpretation  of  the  passage 
as  ethical,  or  experimental  and  practical.  So  interpreted,  we  shall 
read  into  the  apostle's  words  what  is  not  there,  and  lose  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  argument  of  the  Epistle.  This  whole  chapter,  and 
the  next  two  chapters,  contrary  to  the  current  view,  are  forensic, 
this  only,  in  their  line  of  thought.  Paul's  great  theme  is  the  dif- 
ference between  the  Jewish  plan  of  acceptance  with  God,  by  works 
of  law,  and  the  evangelical  plan,  by  faith.  He  rejects  the  former ; 
he  establishes  the  latter;  and,  as  an  inference,  he  establishes  the 
principle  that  Gentiles,  too,  may  be  accepted. 


214  EXPOSITION. 

Surely  tho  npostlo  knew  his  thoiiie,  and  knew  liow  to  adliere 
to  it. 

Verse  18.  But  having  been  enfreed  from  the  sin,  ye 
■were  enslaved  to  the  justification. 

The  terms  here  eniploj^etl  are  the  technical  terms  of  the  law 
of  slavery.  A  slave  is  enfreed,  or  emancipated,  when  he  g<jes 
free,  by  a  legal  process,  from  his  service  to  his  master.  And  a 
freeman  who  owes  no  service,  or  a  slave,  by  transfer,  is  enslaved 
when  he  comes  under  service  to  a  master.  Such  is  the  apostle's 
figure  to  illustrate  man's  forensic  relations  to  law,  or  to  grace. 
The  sinner,  upon  believing  in  Christ,  is  "enfreed"  from  his  legal 
bondage  to  sin,  that  is,  from  his  obnoxiousness  to  the  penalty  of 
sin;  and  in  tlie  same  instant  is  "enslaved,"  or  brought  under  a 
new  service,  to  justification.  The  old  service,  and  the  new  service, 
have,  no  doubt,  very  definite  ethical  features;  but  the  asj)ects  of 
the  case  here  considered  are  wholly  legal,  or  forensic.  The  be- 
liever, in  his  former  slavery  as  to  sin,  was  subject  to  the  penalty  of 
death;  in  his  later  service  as  to  justification,  he  is  acquit  from 
penalty,  and  becomes  heir  with  Christ,  of  eternal  life. 

"Verse  19(f.  I  speak  with  a  human  illustration,  on  ac- 
count of  your  feebleness  of  flesh. 

The  words  are  the  apostle's  explanation,  or  semi-apology,  for 
the  sensuous,  trite,  commonplace  figure  which  he  has  adojjted  to 
express  religious  concepts ;  and  he  says  that  he  has  adopted  tliis 
method  of  illustration  on  account  of  their  inability  to  apprehend 
abstract,  or  purely  spiritual,  concepts.  In  a  similar  embarrassment, 
he  says  to  the  Corinthians:  "I  was  not  able  to  speak  to  you  as 
spiritual,  but  as  carnal,  as  babes  in  Christ.  I  fed  you  milk,  and 
not  solid  food."  (1  Cor.  iii,  1.)  This  illustration  which  he  has 
drawn  from  every-day  life,  is  intended  to  lielp  this  too  carnal  un- 
derstanding of  spiritual  things.  All  tliese  Roman  Christians  were 
familiar  with  the  institution  of  slavery;  and,  beyond  any  reason- 
able doubt,  many  of  them  had  been,  or  still  were,  themselves 
slaves,  and  had  experienced  literally  all  that  Paul  here  describes. 
For  example,  "Those  of  the  household  of  Narcissus,"  to  whom 
Paul  sends  his  greetings  (Rom.  xvi,  11),  were  formerly  slaves  of 
that  luckless  frcedman  of  Claudius;  and  after  his  death,  slaves  in 
Nero's  "household,"  tliougli  still  keeping,  in  that  larger  imperial 
family,  the  name  of  their  former  master. 


ROMANS  VI,  19.  215 

The  allusion  in  the  verse  is  to  the  illustration  in  verse  eighteen, 
not  to  anything  following. 

The  need  which  the  apostle  felt  to  employ  this  trite  illustra- 
tion of  an  abstract  concept,  shows  the  comparatively  low  grade  of 
spiritual  apprehension  in  his  hearers.  To  «s,  familiar  with  such 
themes,  and  experiencing  no  difficulty  in  grasping  the  apostle's 
direct  teaching,  the  illustration  is  not  only  not  necessary,  but  is 
even  harder  to  grasp,  and  transfer,  than  the  abstract,  or  general- 
ized, expression  of  the  truth,  or  doctrine  w^hich  he  would  convey. 

Verse  196.  For  just  as  ye  yielded  your  members  slaves 
to  the  uncleanness,  and  to  the  iniquity  with  a  view  to  the 
iniquity,  so  now  yield  your  members  slaves  to  the  justifica- 
tion with  a  view  to  sanctification. 

We  have  seen,  again  and  again,  that  the  discussion  in  this 
Epistle  is  exclusively  on  the  subject  of  justification  from  faith,  the 
legal,  or  forensic,  phase  of  the  gospel;  yet,  as  the  intent  of  all 
Paul's  teaching  was,  that  men  should  be  saved  not  only  from  the 
penalty  of  sm,  but  from  the  taint  of  sin,  the  apostle  here  turns 
aside,  for  a  moment,  from  his  forensic  line  of  thought  and  expres- 
sion, to  enforce,  in  a  single  sentence,  the  moral  lesson  which  arises 
as  an  inference  from  his  argument.  "As  you  once,  under  your 
old  service  to  sin,  gave  yourselves  over,  slaves  to  uncleanness,  with 
a  view  to  the  practice  of  iniquity,  so  now,  under  your  new  service, 
give  your  members  over,  slaves  to  justification,  with  a  view  to 
sanctification.  The  word  here  translated  sanctification  a.~ria(rtx6s, 
expresses  rather  the  process  of  sanctification,  than  the  resultant 
sanctity  (holiness),  a-^MCvvt).  The  phrase  may  be  best  rendered 
"with  a  view  to  growth  in  holiness;"  as  though  the  justified  had 
not  already  attained  this  higher  experience.  The  moral  work  in 
man  is  of  long  and  gradual  process.  It  is  wrought  out  with  patient 
continuance  in  well  doing.  We  are  to  go  on  to  maturity;  to 
grow  up  to  the  fullness  of  the  stature  of  mature  manhood  in 
Christ ;  to  become  holy,  as  he  is  holy. 

This  is  the  second,  and  the  last,  reference  to  sanctification,  in 
this  Epistle.  Both  references,  tlie  one  in  the  twelfth  verse,  and 
the  one  in  this  verse,  are  quite  incidental,  almost  accidental ;  and 
they  might  have  been  omitted,  or  relegated  to  the  margin,  without 
detriment  to  the  logical  connection  or  to  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment. But  perhaps  they  give  us  a  suggestion  or  to  Paul's  style 
of  preaching.    When  he  made  a  point  in  his  didactic  treatment  of 


21G  EXI'OSITrOX. 

his  subject  he  paused  to  clinch  it  witli  a  pex'tinent  exhortation. 
It  is  not  until  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  Epistle,  after  he  has 
ended  the  discussion  of  his  great  theme,  that  he  turns  to  "  edify- 
ing" teachings  on  morals  and  practice;  and  not  even  then  on 
"  sanctification  "  as  a  sjjecialty. 

Verse  20.  For  when  ye  were  slaves  of  sin,  ye  were 
free  men  as  to  the  justification. 

This  is  a  concrete  instance  of  the  abstract  saying:  "No  man 
can  serve  two  masters."  Free  expresses  the  opposite  of  slaves; 
and  the  word  might,  perhaps,  for  the  apostle's  concept,  be  better 
rendered  "freemen,"  or  even  "  freedmen,"  the  non-slaves,  or  ex- 
slaves  of  justification.  "The  slaves  as  to  sin  are  freemen,  or 
ex-slaves,  as  regards  justification." '  They  are  under  bondage  as 
regards  sin;  and  they  earn  the  wages  of  sin,  death;  they  are  not 
under  bondage  as  to  the  law  of  justification  ;  and  they  do  not  reap 
its  reward,  life.  It  is  in  this  thought,  that  the  apostle  asks  the 
question  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  21.  What  fruit,  therefore,  were  ye  having  then, 
from  the  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed  ?  for  the  end 
of  those  things  is  death. 

By  fruit,  or,  perhaps,  better,  "fruitage,"  is  meant  wages, 
profit,  the  harvest  reaped  in  the  days  of  their  slavery  to  sin.  The 
answer  to  tiie  question  is  not  given  in  the  text,  but  is  implied  in 
the  words  of  tlie  next  sentence,  and  is  easily  supplied:  "What 
enjoyment?  what  harvest  were  ye  liaving?  [Notliing  but  misery 
and  perdition] ;  for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death."  Paul 
elsewhere  tells  explicitly  what  the  harvest  is :  "  Whatsoever  a  man 
sows,  that  will  he  also  reap.  Because  he  that  sows  with  a  view 
to  his  flesh,  from  the  flesh  will  reap  destruction."  (Gal.  vi,  7.) 
Death  is  the  penal  destruction  of  their  being.  It  is  only  in  the 
glad  "slavery  to  justification"  that  we  shall  find  life.  "He  that 
sows  with  a  view  to  the  Spirit,  from  the  Spirit  will  reap  life  eter- 
nal."    (Gal.  vi,8.) 

Verse  22.  But  now^,  having  been  enfreed  from  the  sin, 
but  having  been  enslaved  as  to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit 
with  a  view  to  sanctification,  but  the  end  life  eternal. 

Slavery  as  to  sin  is  alnverif  indeed  ;  gross,  degrading,  wretched, 
deadly.     All  creation   is  intolerant  of   it;    there   is  no  peace  to 


ROMANS  VI,  23.  217 

the  wicked  ;  there  is  no  place  in  the  universe  for  sin.  Conversely, 
slavery  as  to  God  is  bountiful,  joyful,  freedom.  The  twenty-first 
verse  characterizes  the  harvest  that  is  reaped  from  "slavery  to 
sin;"  this  verse  characterizes  the  harvest  from  "slavery  to  God." 
And  so  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians:  "  The  fruitage  of  the  Spirit 
is  love,  joy,  peace,  goodness,  faith,  meekness;  against  such  things 
there  is  no  law."  (Gal.  v,  22.)  "Its  fruitage  is  with  a  view  to 
sanct ideation  ;  its  end  is  eternal  life." 

Verse  23.  For  the  wages  of  the  sin  is  death :  but  the 
gracious  gift  of  God  is  life  eternal,  in  Christ  Jesus,  our 
Lord. 

It  is  a  trite  saying,  and  true,  that  "  Sin  pays  wages ;  God  gives 
gifts."  The  wages  of  sin  are  always  hardly  earned  ;  God's  "grace  " 
is,  as  the  word  implies,  always  a  "gratuity."  The  service  of  sin 
is  harsh,  and  its  wages  are  death ;  the  service  of  God  is  easy,  and 
his  gratuity  is  life.  The  latter  is  expressly  described  as  eternal; 
but  the  former,  the  antithesis  of  life,  is  also  eternal. 


CHAPTER    VII. 


Verse  1.  Or,  do  ye  not  know,  brethren  (for  I  speak  to 
men  that  know  law),  that  the  Law  lords  it  over  the  man 
for  so  long-  a  time  as  he  lives? 

AVe  luive  found  repeated  occasions  to  note  the  two  questions 
that  are  discussed  in  tliis  Epistle,  "Who  may  be  saved?"  "  Jloio 
may  they  be  saved?"  In  this  chapter  it  is  the  latter  wiiich  par- 
ticularly comes  to  the  front.  In  the  discussion  of  this  theme,  the 
apostle  has  already  sliown  the  legal  relations  of  men,  of  all  men 
equally,  to  the  law  of  God,  and  the  two  diverse  methods  of  justi- 
fication in  God's  sight, — the  justification  from  works  of  law,  and 
tlie  justification  from  faith  in  Christ.  The  present  chapter  falls 
into  line  in  this  argument.  And  the  much-debated  passage  from 
verse  7  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  must  be  interpreted  in  this  direc- 
tion ;  and  thougli  this  passage  recognizes  that  man  has  a  moral 
nature,  a  conscience,  a  knowledge  of  sinfulness,  and  a  sense  of 
amenability,  it  is  nevertheless  in  no  sense  a  discussion  of  Cliristian 
experience,  or  even  of  ethical  issues.  It  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
domain. of  forensic  theology. 

In  the  sixth  chapter  the  apostle  adopted  the  figure  of  slavery 
to  illustrate  tlie  forensic  relation  of  man  to  the  works  of  law  on 
the  one  side,  or  to  tlie  faith  in  Christ  on  the  other, — the  sinner's 
"  slavery  as  to  sin  "  in  his  degenerate  state,  or  his  "  slavery  as  to 
justification  "  in  his  regenerate  state.  Paul's  readers  of  the  pres- 
ent day,  with  tliis  knowledge  of  tlie  gospel  jilan,  would  surely  have 
no  difficulty  in  understanding  the  apostle's  teaching,  even  witliout 
the  figure  which  he  felt  it  necessary  to  use  as  an  aid  to  the  Romans 
for  better  comprehension  of  his  abstract  teachings.  But  in  writing 
to  the  Romans  he  is  not  content  with  one  illustration  only  of  so 
vital  a  point.  In  the  seventh  chapter  he  attacks  his  subject  afresh 
through  the  help  of  a  second  striking  figure,  that  of  marriage, 
which,  of  course,  does  not  change,  in  the  slightest  degree,  the 

218 


ROMANS  VII,  2.  219 

essential  character  of  the  matter  in  issue,  but  which  gives  his 
readers  another  aspect  of  man's  forensic  relations  to  law  or  to 
faith  in  Christ. 

The  apostle  introduces  this  new  illustration  with  tlie  real  al- 
ternative conjunction  or  (wliicli  tlie  Authorized  strangely  omits)  ; 
as  if  he  had  said,  Or  (to  change  the  illustration),  do  you  not 
know —  ? 

Note  the  difference  here,  as  always,  between  law  and  the 
Law.  The  former  expresses  abstract  principles ;  the  latter  a  par- 
ticular statute.  The  Romans,  beyond  the  rest  of  the  world,  had 
clear  and  definite  legislation.  Paul  could  safely  appeal  to  them, 
of  all  men,  that  they  "  knew  law."  "  The  Law  "  here  is  the  par- 
ticular statute  which  regulates  the  marriage  relation  between  hus- 
band and  wife.  This  statute  lords  it  over  the  man  (rod  avOpdnrov, 
the  married  person,  man  or  woman)  for  life.  Such  was,  and  every- 
where is,  the  ideal  marriage  law.  The  apostle  does  not  recognize 
divorce,  which  under  the  law  of  Christ  exists  but  for  one  cause 
(Matt,  xix,  9),  and  in  the  present  discussion  may  be  safely  ignored. 

Verse  2.  For  the  wife,  subject  to  a  husband,  has  been 
bound  by  law  to  the  living  husband;  but  if  the  husband 
have  died,  she  has  been  discharged  from  the  law  of  the 
husband. 

We  have  here,  in  the  mention  of  the  wife,  a  concrete  instance 
of  the  general  principle  laid  down  in  the  first  verse.  It  suits  the 
purpose  of  the  apostle  to  take  tlie  case  of  the  wife,  rather  than  of  the 
husband  ;  for  of  the  two  the  wife  is  the  more  dependent,  subject 
to  a  husband ;  and  a  wife,  in  those  days,  never  had  two  husbands, 
though  among  many  nations,  except  the  Romans,  polygamous 
husbands  sometimes  had  more  than  one  wife.  But  in  carrying  out 
the  illustration,  we  must  beware  of  pressing  the  details  of  the 
figure  too  closely.  We  need  not  inquire  too  particularly,  which  of 
the  two  married  parties,  the  sinner  and  the  law  was,  in  Paul's 
conception,  the  husband,  and  which  was  the  wife.  "The  parable 
must  not  go  on  all  fours."  Paul's  fundamental  concept  was  simply 
this,  that  the  two  parties  ivere  married,  and  that  death  alone  severs 
the  bond.  But  always  it  is  the  sinner  that  dies,  never  the  law.* 
Yet  the  apostle's  figure  requires  that  the  sinner,  who  was  married 
to  the  Law,  shall,  the  instant  that  he  dies  as  to  the  Law  (of  course, 


'■'  See  the  first  note  on  verse  6. 


220  EXPOSITION. 

constructively),  become  ipso  facto  married  again,  to  Christ.  This 
death,  and  instant  marriage  again,  of  the  same  party,  is  sufticiently 
unnatural ;  but  can  easily  be  granted  for  the  purposes  of  the  illus- 
tration. There  is  in  this  illustration  another  seeming  weak  point, 
which  does  not  appear  in  the  illustration  from  slavery;  namely, 
tliat  not  all  men  are  married,  while  all  men  are  conceivably  slaves. 
Yet  here  again,  for  the  purposes  of  the  illustration,  we  may  affirm, 
that,  in  the  aposj,le's  forensic  sense,  all  men, — men,  women,  and 
children,  all  of  Adam's  race — are  married  to  the  Law  ;  and  that,  in 
their  death,  with  Christ,  they  "  die  as  to  the  Law,"  and,  therefore, 
become  "married  to  Christ."  This  "marriage  to  Christ"  may 
seem  a  strained  sense  of  the  word  ;  yet  we  do  not  count  the  figure 
overstrained  when  we  say  that  "one  is  wedded  to  his  sins,"  which 
is  a  very  common  expression  for  a  moral  entanglement  in  some- 
thing bad,  or  even  in  something  good.  The  apostle's  word  in  this 
paragraph  is  the  same;  the  figure  is  the  same;  but  he  uses  his 
figure  and  word  wholly  in  a  forensic  sense;  and  does  not  imply 
that  the  sinner's  "  coveting  "  is  enlisted,  though  this  is  also  true.* 
As  in  the  previous  figure  of  slavery  every  man  is  either  a  slave 
to  a  master,  or  is  enfreed  from  his  master,  but  instantly  becomes 
enslaved  to  another,  so  with  the  marriage  bond:  if  the  sinner  dies 
as  to  one  husband  (law,  or  sin),  he  at  the  same  instant  becomes 
married  to  another  husband  (justification,  or  Christ).  Indeed  the 
apostle  has  the  thouglit  of  slavery  or  of  marriage  so  set  in  his 
mind,  that  he  seems  almost  unconsciously  to  use  the  two  figures 
interchangeably.  In  the  sixth  verse,  where  the  figure  of  marriage 
breaks  down  in  his  application  of  it,  because  he  can  not  use  it  in 
regard  to  God,t  he  reverts  quite  readily  to  the  more  common,  and 
easier  figure  of  slavery:  "  We  become  slaves  to  God." 

Verse  3.  Accordingly,  then,  if,  while  the  husband*  is 
living,  she  become  married  to  a  different  husband,  she  will 
be  called  an  adulteress;  but  if  the  husband  have  died,  she 
is  free  from  the  law,  so  as  not  to  be  an  adulteress,  though 
she  become  married  to  a  different  husband. 

The  verse  only  reiterates  and  emphasizes  the  point  already 
affirmed,  that  no  wife  can  be  married  to  two  husbands.     In  its 

"  Similarly  for  the  figure  (though,  perhaps,  not  with  the  same  forensic 
concept).  John  calls  Christ  "  the  Bridegroom,"  and  the  Church  "  his  wife." 
"Come.  I  will  show  thoe  the  bride,  the  wife  of  the  Lamb."    (Rev.  xxl,  fl.) 

t  And  yet  the  prophets  (Isa.  llv,  5;  Hos.  11,  2)  venture  on  even  this 
figure;  and  call  God  the  husband  of  the  Church,  but  In  an  ethical  sense. 


ROMANS  VTI,  4.  221 

application  to  the  matter  in  hand,  it  means  that  the  sinner  belongs 
wholly  to  the  Law,  or  wholly  to  Justification  from  faith ;  or,  to 
adhere  to  the  present  figure,  he  is  married  to  sin  (or  Law)  ;  or  is 
married  to  Justification  from  faith.  All  divided  allegiance  or 
service  to  Christ,  is  as  abnormal,  incongruous,  impossible,  as 
bigamy  to  a  true  wife. 

Verse  4.  So  that,  my  brethren,  ye  also  were  put  to 
death  as  to  the  Law,  through  the  body  of  Christ,  with  a 
view  to  yoiir  becoming  married  to  a  different  husband,  the 
One  who  was  raised  from  among  dead  men ;  in  order  that 
we  may  bear  frmt  to  God. 

The  expression  through  the  body  of  Christ  means  "  in  the 
person  of  Clirist."  The  apostle  teaches  that  "we  were  crucified 
VFith  Christ  "  (Gal.  ii,  20)  ;  that  is,  "  we  were  put  to  death  on  the 
cross,  in  the  person  of  Christ."  As  members  of  his  body,  we 
were  put  to  death  through  his  body.  Neither  his  death,  nor 
ours  with  him,  was  mystical  or  figurative.  His  death  was  literal, 
and  actual;  our  death,  too,  is  to  be  conceived  of  as  literal,  but 
suffered  in  his  person,  constructively.  Yet  in  the  eye  of  the  Law 
it  is  counteji  to  us,  forensically,  as  if  actually  endured.  Such  is 
Paul's  concept ;  such  is  his  teaching  in  this  sentence,  and  wherever 
else  he  affirms  in  regard  to  our  relation  to  the  Law,  and  to  Christ. 

In  actual  life,  the  death  of  the  husband  dissolves  the  marriage 
relation,  and  leaves  the  wife  free  to  marry  a  different  husband. 
Such,  to  carry  out  the  apostle's  figure  in  this  verse,  is  the  case  in 
regard  to  the  sinner.  His  marriage  to  the  Law  is  dissolved  by  his 
death,  and  he  can  now  enter  into  a  new  marriage.  "  He  was 
put  to  death  as  to  the  Law,  his  first  husband,  in  the  person 
of  Christ."  And  this  was  done  with  a  view  to  a  new  marriage 
with  a  different  husband,  even  Jesus  Christ,  who,  too,  was 
dead,  but  w^as  raised  from  among  the  dead.  And  tin's  mar- 
riage took  place  in  order  that  we  may  bear  fruit  to  God. 
(Deut.  xxviii,  11.) 

Paul  uses  several  terms,  "the  wife,"  "you,"  "  we,"  quite  pro- 
miscuously, to  designate  the  sinner,  the  subject  of  the  discussion. 
Yet,  while  he  seems  to  change  his  point  of  view,  the  real  dramatis 
personx  in  the  transaction  remain  the  same  throughout.  There 
are  two  parties,  only  two,  involved  in  the  representation — the 
pai'ty  of  the  first  part,  the  sinner,  married  now  to  one  husband, 
now  to  another  and  very  different  husband  ;  and  the  party  of  the 


222  EXPOSITION. 

second  part,  the  husV^and  for  tlie  time  being,  either  the  Law,  or 
Justification,  or  Christ. 

We  must  not  press  tlie  figure  too  far.  The  expre-ssion  "  tliat 
we  may  bear  fruit  to  God,"  while  it  may  have  been  suggested  by 
the  figure  of  a  marriage,  is  not  to  be  interpreted,  grossly,  as  mean- 
ing "  to  bear  offspring,"  in  the  marriage  state.  To  interpret  it  so, 
introduces  a  sense  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  passage, 
which  is  simply  that  of  a  close  union  with  the  husband.  Besides 
it  is  said,  that  "we  are  married  to  Christ,  who  was  raised  from 
the  dead,"  but  that  "we  bear  fruit,  not  to  Christ,  our  married 
husband,  but  to  God."  We  are  not,  in  the  terms  of  the  figure, 
"married  to  God;"  we  do  not  "bear  offspring"  to  him,  or,  in  the 
carnal  sense,  to  our  husband  Christ;  but  "we  bring  forth  the 
fruit  of  good  living,"  to  the  praise  of  his  grace.  "We  have  our 
fruit,  the  harvest  of  consecrated  lives,  unto  holiness."  The  same 
verb,  "to  bear  fruit,"  is  found  in  the  next  verse,  in  reference  to 
"death,"  where  the  sense  of  "bringing  forth  children"  is  out  of 
the  question. 

Verse  5.  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  sinful 
passions,  which  were  through  the  Law,  w^ere  at  work  in 
our  members  to  bear  fruit  to  death. 

The  word  flesh  expresses,  properly,  our  human  nature  in  its 
physical  and  psychical  aspect,  but  not  in  ethical  relations.  But 
the  flesh  is  the  seat  of  the  appetites  and  passions,  and  may  through 
these  be  the  occasion  of  our  sin,  though  not  itself  sinful.  When 
we  read  such  expressions  as  "  fiesh  of  sin"  (Rom.  viii,  3),  "the 
lust  of  the  flesh"  (1  John  ii,  16).  "the  will  of  the  flesh"  (Jolm 
i,  13),  "  the  affections  of  the  flesh  "  (2  Pet.  ii,  18),  we  must  under- 
stand them  to  involve  the  notion  (and  this  only)  that  the  flesh  is 
tJie  sphere  in  which  the  lusts  or  appetites  display  tliemselves.  But 
nowhere  does  the  Bible,  or  any  reasonable  psychology,  teach,  or 
imply,  that  the  body,  or  "  the  flesh,"  as  the  seat  of  the  passions,  is 
itself  sinful,  or  subject  to  condemnation.  The  body  is  but  the 
helpless  victim  of  sin,  which  belongs  to  the  conscious  will :  and 
"  it  will  be  delivered  from  this  bondage  of  death  into  the  freedom 
of  God's  children."     (Rom.  viii,  21.) 

But,  secondly,  from  the  above  usage,  the  word  "flesh,"  in  its 
popular  use,connotatively  expresses  our  human  nature  as  affected 
by  sin.  It  thus  acquires  a  quasi-ethical  sense,  and  means  our 
"degenerate  self"  as  "  naturally  engendered  of  Adam,"  and  con- 


ROMANS  VII,  6.  223 

sidered  aside  from  the  regeneration  in  Christ.  The  passage  before 
us,  when  we  w^ere  in  the  flesh,  carries  us  back  in  thought  to 
our  unregenerate  and  impenitent  state,  when  we  were,  ex  IiypotJiesi, 
"  married  to  sin."  In  this  condition,  before  we  died  as  to  sin  and 
became  married  to  Christ,  our  sinful  passions,  w^hich  were 
through  the  Law, — that  is,  stood  revealed  in  their  deformity  by 
the  sudden  flasli-light  of  the  Law— were  at  work  in  our  members, 
but  quite  beneath  our  moral  consciousness,  bringing  forth  a 
harvest  of  death. 

Verse  6.  But,  now,  w^e  were  discharged  from  the  Law, 
having  died  to  that  [marriage]  in  w^hich  we  w^ere  being 
held ;  so  that  we  are  slaves  [to  God]  in  newness  of  spirit, 
and  not  in  oldness  of  letter. 

A  correct  translation  retains  the  historical  tense,  we  were 
discharged  from  the  Law.  The  allusion  is  to  the  same  words, 
as  found  in  the  second  verse:  "  She  has  been  discharged  from  the 
law  of  the  husband ;"  and  the  explanation  requires  tlie  supply  of 
the  same  words  here;  and  the  translation  should  run:  "But,  as 
things  now  are,  we  were  discharged  from  the  Law  [of  the  husband], 
having  died  to  [the  marriage]  in  w^hich  we  w^ere  being 
held."  The  date  of  this  discharge  was  that  of  our  death  with 
Christ,  which  (to  carry  out  the  figure)  was  conceptually  our  death 
to  our  former  marriage  with  Sin,  or  with  the  Law.  The  English 
Version,  "  that  being  dead  in  wiiich  we  were  held,"  makes  the  Law, 
which,  by  the  hypothesis,  is  "  our  husband,"  to  have  died  to  us  ;  but 
the  correct  translation,  as  also  the  previous  verses,  and  especially 
the  Scriptural  concept,  makes  "  the  wife  "  to  die  to  "  the  husband," 
the  sinner  to  die  to  the  Law.     The  Law  does  not  die.® 

In  the  last  clause,  the  metaphor  of  a  marriage  breaks  down 
when  applied  to  God ;  and  the  apostle  reverts  to  the  far  easier 
figure  of  slavery:  "We  have  become  slaves  to  God."  But  see 
the  comment  and  foot-note  at  the  end  of  the  second  verse. 

The  phrase,  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of 
letter  (that  is,  "  in  a  new  state,  one  of  spirit ;  not  in  an  old  state, 
one  of  letter"),  expresses  the  changed  attitude  of   believers  in 


*The  translation  in  the  Authorized,  "that  being  dead,"  follows  an 
error  In  the  Greek  text,  airodavbvros,  instead  of  the  correct  reading, 
aTro6av6vTes .  The  latter  reading  is  given  now  in  all  the  critical  editions. 
The  change  in  but  a  single  letter  changes  the  tenor  of  the  whole  passage. 


224  EXPOSITION. 

Christ  as  no  longer  "  slaves  to  the  Law,"  but  "  slaves  to  G(^  ;" — 
whose  service,  however,  is  freedom.  "Where  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  freedom."  (2  Cor.  iii,  17.)  Believers  are  in  tlie 
new  dispensation  of  the  Spirit ;  and  not  in  the  old  dispensation  of 
the  letter,of  the  Law. 

Verse  7.    Jkw  :  "What  then  shall  we  say  ?    Is  the  Law  sin  ? 
Paul:  God  forbid!     Nay,  but  I  did  not  know  the  sin, 
except  through  law;  for  I  was  not  aware  of  lust,  except 
the  Law  was  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  lust. 

The  first  words  are  the  words  of  the  Jew.  They  express  his 
objection  to  the  apostle's  views,  amounting,  as  he  thinks,  almost 
to  a  reductio  ad  absurd um.  The  apostle  has  shown  again  and  again, 
and  now  once  more,  that  "  justification  from  our  sin  can  not  come 
from  works  of  law,  but  only  from  faith  in  Christ."  Works  of  law 
can  not  put  us  right  with  God,  or  relieve  the  burdened  conscience  ; 
indeed  the  Law,  as  revealed  to  the  Jew,  has  resulted  only  in  bring- 
ing into  clearer  light,  and  in  exaggerating  "  the  passions  of  our  sin, 
which  have  wrought  in  our  members  to  bear  fruit  to  death."  It  is 
only  by  dying  as  to  law,  that  we  enter  into  the  service  of  God. 
The  new  dispensation,  which  is  one  of  faith  in  Christ,  is  the  abo- 
lition of  the  old  dispensation,  which  was  one  of  slavery  to  the 
letter  of  the  Law.  But  the  apostle's  manner  of  expressing  himself 
has  laid  him  open  to  Jewish  cavil,  if  not  to  honest  misapprehen- 
sion. In  the  preceding  discussion,  he  declares,  at  one  time,  that 
"the  sinner  dies  as  to  sin"  (Rom.  vi,  2,  10,  11)  ;  and  again  that 
the  sinner  "dies  as  to  the  Law"  (Rom.  vii,  4,  6),  thus  seeming  to 
identify,  or  equate,  "Law"  with  "sin."  In  reply  to  this  presen- 
tation of  the  apostle's  view,  the  Jew  exclaims,  What  then,  if 
this  is  so,  shall  we  say?  Is  the  Law,  then,  sin?  If  tiie  Law 
does  not  serve  for  justification;  if  it  serves  only  to  bring  our  sins 
into  stronger  relief,  and  even  "to  multiply  them"  (Gal.  iii,  19) ; 
if  the  Law  is  not  counted  in  God's  plan  of  justification,  but  gives 
place  to  Faith,  is  it  become  a  thing  accursed,  instead  of  good  ? 
"Is  the  Law  sin?"  Certainly  this  question,  "Is  the  Law  sin?"  is 
the  natural  and  appropriate  question  of  the  Jew,  who  rejects 
Paul's  premises.  But  the  apostle  meets  tlu'  contentious  question 
with  his  peremptory  "No!  God  forbid  that  the  Law  should 
be  counted  sin,  a  thing  accursed.  Nay;  but  yet  it  was  only 
through  the  office  of  law  that  I  came  to  know  sin  as  sin.  I  was 
not  even  conscious  of  lust,  as  a  matter  forbidden,  except  that  the 


ROMANS  VII,  7.  225 

Law  first  kept  telling  me,  'Thou  shalt  not  lust.'  That  is,  Law  fii-st 
defined  duty  ;  and  I  thus  came  to  realize  my  divergence  from  the 
standard  tliat  it  set  up/' 

Both  the  verbs,  I  came  to  know  sin,  and  I  was  aware  of 
lust,  are  in  the  indicative  mode,  and  express  matters  of  historical 
fact ;  and  not  of  unreal  conception,  as  in  the  Authorized  and  Re- 
vised: "I  had  not  known."  Paul  looks  back  to  the  time  when 
he  "was  in  the  flesh,"  in  his  yet  unregenerate  and  unawakened 
state,  under  sin ;  and  in  these  verbs  describes  how  the  coming  of 
the  Law  startled  him  out  of  his  apathy.  The  second  clause  means 
"I  was  not  conscious  of  my  lust,  as  a  thing  forbidden  and  sinful, 
but  that  the  Law  commanded,  '  Thou  shalt  not  lust.'  "  The  word 
lust  both  as  substantive  and  verb,  is  the  proper  sense  of  the 
Greek  word  that  Paul  here  uses.  The  allusion  to  the  "command- 
ment" in  the  Decalogue  (Ex.  xx,  17)  recalls  to  us  the  more  famil- 
iar words,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet;"  but  the  word  "covet"  is  not 
specific  enough  to  express  Paul's  definite  concept  here ;  and  the 
word  "desire"  is  not  strong  enough,  and  it,  too,  is  not  sufficiently 
precise. 

Beginning  with  this  verse,  Paul's  discussion  through  the  rest 
of  tlie  chapter  is  made  much  more  striking  by  the  introduction, 
nearly  fifty  times,  in  the  nineteen  verses,  of  the  personal  pronoun 
of  the  first  person,  I,  my,  me.  This  use  of  the  personal  pronoun 
has  occasioned  much  needless  debate,  as  if,  instead  of  being  Paul's 
mere  rhetorical  device  for  lively  effect,  he  had  here  turned  aside 
from  his  main  theme,  to  introduce  a  bit  of  personal  history  and 
experiences.  Most  interpreters  in  this  direction,  think  that  he  is 
representing  himself  as  passing  through  some  spiritual  crisis  in 
his  life,  after  having  abandoned  Judaism,  and  become  a  believer 
in  Christ,  and  then  these  interpreters  add  that  the  apostle,  speak- 
ing liere  as  a  Christian,  stands  as  a  typical  representative  of  all 
Christians,  because  all  pass  through  similar  experiences.  But 
whether  tliis  experience  was  before  regeneration  (which  is  the 
Arminian  view),  or  after  regeneration  (which  is  the  Calvinistic 
view),  no  one  can  tell.  No  doubt,  some  of  the  language  here  may 
have  this  peculiar  religious  significance  read  into  it ;  (for  all  relig- 
ious experiences  have  something  in  common) ;  but  to  give  the 
passage  as  a  whole  this  interpretation,  is  to  do  violence  to  much 
else  of  the  language,  and,  worst  of  all,  it  fails  to  keep  the  section 
in  logical  coherence  with  the  preceding  and  the  succeeding  dis- 
cussion. Paul  has  not  gotten  off  the  track  ;  he  has  not  interjected 
15 


22  C  EXPOSITION. 

an  episode  from  his  own  history  into  tlie  discussion  ;  and  these  in- 
terpretations are  purely  fanciful,  held,  the  one  as  the  other,  in  the 
interest  of  conflicting  theologies. 

In  reality,  Paul  is  not  sja'aking  in  the  i)erson  of  a  Christian, 
but  in  the  person  of  a  Jew  yet  under  the  dispensation  of  law.  He 
is  depicting  a  representative  Jew,  "  instructed  according  to  the 
law  of  his  fathers,  zealous  for  God  "  (Acts  xxii,  3),  devout,  intro- 
spective, religious,  but  vainly  grasping  after  justification  with 
God,  by  works  of  law.  This  is  the  one  thing  in  "  issue."  The; 
particular  form  of  expression,  in  the  first  person,  may  possibly 
have  come  to  the  apostle  from  his  own  bitter  personal  reminis- 
cence of  ineffectual  struggles  to  be  at  peace  with  himself,  and  with 
God:  but  wliether  he  is  describing  his  own  experience  or  not,  it  is 
in  the  person  of  a  Jew,  travailing  with  a  Jew's  diflRculties,  tliat  he 
thinks  and  speaks. 

To  comprehend  the  apostle's  thought,  we  must  hold  to  the 
view  so  often  insisted  on,  that  the  discussion  is  wholly  from  the 
forensic  standpoint.  Is  man  justified  from  his  sins  by  works  of 
law,  as  the  synagogue  taught?  or  is  he  justified  from  faith  in 
Christ,  as  the  gospel  teaches  ?  And  Paul's  discussion  in  this  pas- 
sage is  an  attempt  to  show  the  dead  failure  of  the  former  method, 
as  portrayed  in  the  experience  of  a  typical  Ji'w.  Tliere  is  no 
distinctively  gospel  element  in  the  passage,  no  Christian  experience 
described,  no  experience  at  all,  different  from  that  of  any  devout 
Jew;  or  improbable,  indeed,  for  any  serious  heathen,  like  Confu- 
cius, or  Socrates,  or  Seneca.  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  doctrines 
of  Grace,  or  to  witness  of  the  Spirit,  or  to  holiness  of  heai't, — 
only  the  forlorn  failure  of  justification  from  works,  only  the  con- 
demnation of  law  that  rises  dreadful  and  inevitable  before  the 
speaker.  There  is  no  reference  to  Christ  in  all  the  passage,  until, 
at  the  very  end  of  it,  the  speaker,  in  despair  of  justification  from 
law,  with  a  cry  of  anguish,  "  O  wretched  man,  I,"  turns  to  inquire, 
"  AVho,  then,  will  deliver  me  from  this  death?"  and,  thus,  aban- 
doning all  hope  of  help  from  works  of  law,  he  finds  the  only  answer 
to  his  burdened  soul  is  "Christ." 

The  paragraph  from  the  seventh  to  the  thirteenth  verse,  is 
purely  historical;  all  the  verbs  in  the  narrative  are  in  the  past 
(aorist)  tense.  These  verbs,  as  we  have  seen,  carry  us  back  to  the 
time  when  Paul,  or  the  Jew  in  whose  person  he  speaks,  "was  in 
the  flesh  ;"  the  time  when  he  knew  of  no  other  way  of  justification 
before  God  than   from  works  of  law ;  yet  was  all  the  while  only 


ROMANS  VII,  8.  227 

too  conscious  that  his  life  and  works  did  not  measure  up  to  the 
standard  of  the  hiw ;  and  that  ho  was  left  carnal,  sold  under  sin, 
subject  to  condemnation.  Paul  looks  back  to  this  period,  and  finds 
no  comfort  in  the  thought  of  law.  No  doubt  it  was  holy,  and  just, 
and  good,  but  to  him  it  was  death!  In  this  striking  description  of 
the  inability  of  the  law,  Paul  is  doubtless  but  expressing  what  he 
himself,  though  a  zealot  for  the  Law,  once  felt  in  his  secret  heart. 
The  whole  narrative  is  an  intense,  acute  analysis  of  the  inmost 
feelings  and  struggles  of  an  awakened,  despairing  soul,  which  in 
its  agony  grapjiles  with  the  great  problem,  the  greatest  of  prob- 
lems, and  finds  no  solution:  "How  shall  man  be  just  with  God?" 
"  Whcrewitlial  sliall  I  come  before  the  Lord,  that  I  may  appease 
his  wrath?"     And  Judaism  has  no  answer. 

The  historic  description  in  verses  7-13  soon  ceases  to  be  vivid 
enough  to  suit  the  apostle's  rush  of  thought ;  and  after  the  four- 
teenth verse  he  brings  his  verbs  forward  into  the  glowing  light  of 
the  present  tense.  But  though  there  is  a  change  of  tense,  there 
is  no  new  phase  of  experience  ;  only  a  new  accentuation  of  the  old, 
and  we  must  date  all  the  experience  so  described  back  to  the  dis- 
pensation of  law. 

Verse  8a.  But  the  sin,  having  taken  a  vantage  ground, 
through  the  commandment  "wrought  out  in  me  all  lust. 

The  figure  in  the  first  clause  is  military.  The  vantage 
ground  is  a  "base,"  or  starting-point,  for  a  strategic  movement. 
Paul  says  that  Sin  has  seized  a  vantage  ground,  and  by  a  sudden 
attack  has  wrought  him  ruin.  The  "vantage  ground"  was  the 
natural  appetites  for  everything  that  will  pander  to  the  gratifica- 
tion of  the  senses.  These  natural  apjDCtites,  which  are  good  in 
themselves,  were  given  to  man  for  his  happiness ;  it  is  the  abuse 
of  tliem,  and  not  the  proper  enjoyment  of  them,  that  brings  sin 
and  death.  And  it  is  the  abuse,  so  almost  inevitable  in  our  de- 
generate state,  that  Paul  here  expresses  by  the  last  word  in  the 
sentence,  lust,  which  word,  once  a  synonym  for  innocent  desire, 
has  now  taken  on  an  offensive  sense.  The  verb  "wrought  out  lust 
does  not  mean  created  lust.  The  seeds  for  this  ill  harvest  were 
already  planted  and  germinant  in  human  nature  ;  and  needed  but 
the  Ithuriel  touch  of  law  to  make  them,  like  the  classic  "dragon's 
teeth,"  spring  to  armed  life.  The  verb  "wrought  out"  is  prac- 
tically a  synonym  here  for  "brought  out."  The  thought  is  the 
same  as  in  Paul's  language  elsewhere:  "All  things  that  are  re- 


228  EXrOSITTOX. 

proved,  arc  made  manifest  by  the  light."  (Eph.  v,  13.)  The  verse 
thus  means  that  Sin  (the  personified  sinfulness  in  our  nature) 
found  a  weak  place  in  our  defenses,  the  appetites  of  our  degenerate 
nature,  and  through  the  commandment  wrought  out,  brought  out, 
into  full  growth  and  activity,  all  lust. 

Verses  8l>,  9,  lO.  For,  apart  from  law,  sin  was  dead. 
But,  as  for  me,  I  was  alive,  apart  from  law,  once:  but 
when  the  commandment  came,  sin  sprang  to  life,  but  I 
died ;  and  the  commandment  which  was  ordained  with  a 
view  to  life,  this  was  found  by  me  unto  death. 

The  first  clause  here  is  part  of  the  eighth  vei'se,  but  ought  to 
go  witli  the  ninth,  as  I  have  given  it. 

Some  critics,  and  the  Kevised,  read  the  first  clause,  "Sin  is 
dead,"  making  it  a  mere  gnome,  or  genei'al  maxim,  as  in  the  verse 
"  Where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression."  (Kom.  iv,  15.) 
But  the  clause  in  our  text  is  a  part  of  Paul's  narrative  of  his  expe- 
rience, and  correlates  historically  to  the  answering  clause  in  the 
ninth  verse:  Sin  was  dead  .  .  .  sin  sprang-  to  life.  The 
Authorized  here  is  correct. 

Tlie  saying  in  the  first  verse  above  connects  back  to  the  word 
commandment  (which  is  equivalent  to  "law"),  and  the  clause, 
then  explains  that  the  commandment,  or  law%  being  dormant,  had 
not  always  had  its  normal  way  and  sway  in  the  earth.  In  point 
of  fact,  both  the  law  and  sin  had  always  been  present  in  the 
world  ;  but  they  had  not  always  come  into  conscious  collision  in 
the  hearts  of  men.  Law  was  absent,  and  sin  was  dead — not 
in  reality,  but  only  to  tlie  then  present  consciousness  of  men.  It 
was  not  so,  but  so  it  seemed.  Law  was  present,  but  not  always  rec- 
ognized as  condemnatory;  sin,  too,  was  always  present,  but  not 
always  thought  of  as  sinful.  AVhen  the  conscience  was  dormant, 
the  condemnation  of  law  was  not  realized;  and  "sin  was  dead," 
as  if  (how  grave  the  mistake!)  it  did  not  exist.  No!  Sin  w^as  not 
"dead,"  but  really  as  alive  and  damnable  as  on  the  day  when 
Adam  fell,  or  on  the  day  when  Paul  wrote  this  cliapter;  and  tlie 
Paul  described  in  this  narrative  was  only  conceptually  alive, 
apart  from  law,  but  was  really  as  dead  (that  is,  doomed  to  death) 
ns  on  the  fatal  day,  later,  in  which  his  conscience  and  his  con- 
sciousness awoke  to  the  fact  that  he  was  indeed  a  sinner;  and 
that  "the  woi-d  of  God  is  alive,  and  active,  sharper  than  any 
sword,  .  .  .  able  to  discern  the  feelings  and  thoughts  of  the 
heart."     (Heb.  iv,  12.) 


ROiVANS  VII,  11.  229 

The  next  clause,  when  the  commandment  came,  does  not 
imply  that  it  has  not  always  been  present  and  regnant  among 
men,  so  far  as  the  purpose  of  God  was  concerned ;  but  that  it  only 
now  came  home  to  Paul's  quickened  conscience.*  It  came  empan- 
oplied,  his  foe.  His  consciousness  of  sin  came  to  life.  Sin  lived, 
and  slew  him.  How  sad  his  words:  "I  was  living,  once;  but  I 
died.  Once  I  had  no  sense  of  condemnation  :  then  suddenly  I  felt 
the  sentence  of  death  in  myself;  and  the  commandment,  which, 
in  God's  plans,  was  normally  intended  to  bring  justification  and 
life,  was  found  in  my  bitter  experience  to  result  in  condemnation 
and  eternal  death !" 

Verse  11.  For  the  sin  having  taken  a  vantage  ground, 
through  the  commandment  deceived  me,  and  through  it 
put  me  to  death. 

Tlie  thouglit  of  the  eighth  verse  is  here  repeated  witii  a  telling 
addition:  "Sin,  through  the  coming  of  the  law^,  deceived  me." 
The  word  is  used  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view.  The  self-satisfied 
Jew  "rested  on  law,  and  boasted  in  God,  and  was  confident  that 
he  was  upright,  because  he  had  in  the  law  the  form  of  knowledge 
and  of  the  truth."  (Rom.  ii,  17.)  To  him  the  law  was  a  system 
of  outward  observances,  and  in  minding  these,  he  verily  thought 
that  he  was  rendering  obedience  to  God,  and  meriting  his  approval. 
But  he  was  blind  to  his  spiritual  condition  before  the  law.  Then, 
suddenly,  he  awoke  to  the  fact  that  he  had  totally  mistaken  the 
character  of  God's  law.  It  was  a  law  of  ethical  tenor,  and  of 
stringent  tenure  ;  it  looked  at  the  inward  motives,  not  at  the  out- 
ward service  ;  and  it  was  pitiless  towards  the  slightest  non-fulfill- 
ment of  its  demands ;  it  was  a  searcher  of  the  heart,  and  pierced 
even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit.  As  such,  the  law 
had  caught  him  defenseless  against  its  attack.  In  his  fancied 
security  he  had  expected  no  such  waking  up  and  shaking  up. 
"  Sin,  through  the  commandment,  deceived  him."  This  blind  sense  of 
security  gave  place  to  an  equally  blind  terror ;  and  he  felt  that  the 
Law  had  slain  him. 

Such  is  the  way  it  seemed  to  him  as  a  Jew;  but,  perhaps,  at  a 
later  day,  the  Christian  apostle  would  more  truly  have  said,  from 
the  gospel  point  of  view,  that  the  coming  of  the  law  "  undeceived 
him,"  by  showing  him  his  true  self  as  a  lost  sinner,  without  recon- 
ciliation with  God,  and  knowing  no  way  of  justification. 


The  law  hath  not  been  dead,  though  it  hath  slept; 
now  't  Is  awake."—"  Measure  for  Measure,"  11,  2, 


230  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  12.  So  that  the  Law,  indeed,  is  holy,  and  the 
commandment  is  holy,  and  just,  and  good. 

This  verse  is  the  answer  to  the  question  in  the  seventh  verse, 
"  Is  the  Law  sinf"  The  discussion  in  the  intervening  verses  shows 
that  it  is  not  tlie  Law,  but  sin  wliich  is  responsible  for  the  death 
of  man.  The  Law  of  God,  like  its  Giver,  is  holy;  and  the  com- 
mandment [tlie  tenth  commandment  of  the  Decalogue  is  meant, 
whicli  commands,  Thou  shalt  not  covet  ("lust")]  is  holy,  and 
just,  and  good.  The  triple  predicates  are  a  rhetorical  climax  ; 
but  we  may  easily  discriminate  their  several  senses:  the  com- 
mandment [the  Law]  is  holy  in  its  ethical  character,  just  in  its 
prescriptions,  good  in  its  aims. 

This  verse  ends  the  paragraph  beginning  with  the  seventh 
verse.  The  thirteenth  begins  with  a  new  Jewish  objection  against 
the  apostle's  views,  and  the  discussion  to  which  it  leads  runs 
througli  the  rest  of  the  ciiapter.  But  it  is  in  the  same  line  of 
thought  as  the  foregoing  paragraph — the  ineffectual  struggle  for 
justification  by  Jewish  works  of  law. 

Verse  13.  Jew  :  "  Did  then  the  good  [that  which  is  good 
in  the  Law]  become  death  to  me?" 

Paul:  "God  forbid!  Nay,  but  the  sin  [become  death  to 
me] :  in  order  that  it  may  appear  sin,  through  the  good 
[that  is  in  the  Law],  working  out  death  to  me;  in  order 
that  through  the  commandment  the  sin  may  become  ex- 
ceeding sinful." 

The  Jew's  point-blank  question  in  verse  7,  "  Is  law  sin  ?"  by 
which  lie  thought  to  silence  tlie  apostle's  argument  that  law  does 
not  justify  the  sinner,  lias  been  answered.  But  the  Jew  lias  yet  a 
further  diflRculty  before  he  can  accept  the  apostle's  creed  that 
Faith  is  the  sole  justification.  If  the  law,  the  law  of  Jewish  works, 
does  not  result  in  justification,  as  tlie  Jews  held  that  it  did,  but 
in  condemnation  and  death;  and  if  (as  Paul  declares),  it  is  never- 
theless not  the  law  per  se  that  thus  results ;  is  there  then  some- 
tliing  in  the  law  (and,  of  course,  something  good)  wliich  has  this 
fatal  result?  If  not  the  law  itself  directly,  did  the  good  that  is 
in  the  Law  indirectly  become  death  to  me  ?  Is  there  some  feature 
of  the  law,  or  something  in  its  working,  that  is  war])ed  to  this 
unintended  and  unexjiected  result  ?  The  apostle  still  says  No! 
"  Not  the  law  itself,  nor  any  feature  in  the  law,  has  brought  death ; 
but  as  I  said  befoi-e,  it  was  sin  that  became  death  to  me."    Sin 


ROMANS  VII,  14-  231 

became  death  to  me  that  it  might  be  sliown  to  me  to  be,  not  a 
trivial  tiling,  but  s/h  in  its  true,  damning  character,  through  the 
provisions  of  law,  that  were  intended  for  good  only,  working  out 
death  to  me.  Yes  ;  sin  works  out  death ;  through  the  command- 
ment, to  the  end  that  sin  may  become,  and  may  be  felt  to  be, 
exceedingly  sinful. 

Verse  14.  For  we  know  that  the  Law  is  spiritual ;  but  I 
am  carnal,  sold  under  the  sin. 

The  word  for  assigns  the  reason,  and  connects  the  clause  in 
which  it  stands  to  "God  forbid"  of  the  previous  verse,  "God  for- 
bid that  the  good  (in  the  law)  should  have  become  death  to  me: 
for  we  know  that  the  Law  is  spiritual"  [that  is,  works  in  a 
different  spherej.  The  adjective  "  spiritual  "  signifies  not  so  much 
the  divine  origin  of  the  law  (though  this,  too,  lies  in  the  w^ord),  as 
the  divine  character  of  the  law.  It  rules  in  the  sphere  of  holiness, 
justice,  goodness ;  and  can  not  be  charged  with  man's  failure  to 
attain  justification,  and  with  man's  death.  The  responsibility  for 
this  failure  is  not  in  the  law,  but  in  man's  unspiritualness.  I  am 
carnal,  under  the  appetites  of  the  flesh,  a  slave  sold  under  the 
dominion  of  sin,  a  chattel  for  purchase  and  sale. 

The  last  words  are  a   key    to  the   following  passage    (verses 
15-25).    The  several  specifications  are  such  as  eminently  describe  an 
unregenerate,  but  not  unspiritual  man,  and  can  be  fairly  explained, 
on  the  ivhole,  only  on  this   basis.     True,    some    of  these  sayings, 
though  only  some,  can  be  aptly  spoken  of  regenerate  men  ;  but  those 
same  things,  and  all  of  them,  can  be  spoken  of  all  men,  of  unregen- 
erate men  as  well  as  of  the  saints.     In  all  men  conscience  survives, 
and  the  natural  instinct  towards  goodness,  and  much  knowledge 
of  God's  will ;  but  the  flesh  is  weak ;  and,  so,  unregenerate  men 
have  only  "  a  certain  fearful  expectation  of  judgment,  and  of  fiery 
indignation."    (Heb.  x,  27.)   I  think  it  would  be  possible  to  parallel 
every  God-ward  saying  here  with  sayings  equally  God-ward  from 
writers  who  never  heard  the  names  of  Moses  and  Jesus ;  and  to 
parallel  the  despairing  expressions  with  confessions,  alas !  equally 
explicit,  of  human  weakness  to  do  God's  will,  or  to  stand  acquit  in 
his  sight.     All  men  were  made  in  God's  image,  and  still  keep  it: 
"  Their  foi-m  has  not  yet  lost 
All  the  original  brightness,  nor  appears 
Less  than  archangel  ruined;  and  tii' excess 
Of  glory  obscured."—"  Par.  Lost,"  I,  591. 


232  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  15.  For  what  I  work  out,  I  do  not  know  ;  for  not 
w^hat  I  will,  this  I  practice ;  nay,  but  what  I  hate,  this 
I  do. 

In  this  verse  we  have  a  comprehensive  and  terse  statement  of 
the  tremendous  inconsistencies  in  human  will  and  human  action. 
The  word  feebleness  oi  the  will  is  the  foremost  feature  in  the 
whole  description.  Very  rightly,  tlie  apostle  nowhere  says  that 
man  can  not  do  better;  he  says  "  they  do  not  do  better,  because 
they  will  not.  The  three  discriminate  verbs  that  the  a|)ostle  uses 
cover  the  whole  range  of  moral  action — work  out,  practice,  do. 
The  Authorized  confounds  them  and  obscures  the  sense  of  the 
passage.  The  clause,  I  do  not  know  (to  which  the  Authorized 
incorrectly  gives  an  ethical  turn,  "I  alloiu  not")  literally  means, 
"I  liave  no  knowledge  of;"  but  it  rather  expresses  heedless  in- 
attention. It  is  not  ignorance,  but  ignoring  ;  and  we  might  well 
explain  it  by  the  expressive  colloquialism,  "/  do  it  blind."  It  is 
what  Isaiah  said,  "Israel  doth  not  know,  my  people  doth  not  con- 
sider."    (Isa.  i,  3.) 

Verse  16.  But  if  what  I  will  not,  this  I  do,  I  concede  to 
the  Law  that  it  is  right. 

The  predicate  right  (KaX6s)  is  different  from  either  of  the 
terms  used  in  the  twelfth  verse  to  characterize  the  Law.  They 
were  specific;  this  word  is  the  general  Greek  word  of  approval 
(our  colloquial  "all  right").  The  apostle  here  declares  the  Law 
"  right"  in  itself  and  in  its  bearings. 

Our  deliberate  approval  in  the  forum  of  conscience  of  what  is 
right,  while  at  the  same  time  we  wantonly  cleave  in  practice  to 
what  is  wrong,  is  the  standing  tribute  of  unregenerate  human  na- 
ture to  the  rightni'ss  of  God's  law.  Ever  out  of  bad  lives,  our 
judgment  and  conscience  rise  in  protest  to  what  we  do.  We 
know,  and  do  not.  There  is  no  unregenerate  man  who  does  not 
know  virtue  from  vice,  and  who  is  not  also  conscious  that  his 
approval  of  the  one  does  not  restrain  him  from  the  other.  Long 
before  Paul  wrote  these  words,  Ovid  expressed  the  common  bias 
of  men  towards  the  wrong,  and  the  failure  of  reason  or  of  law  to 
hold  men  in  check:  "My  mind  persuades  me  to  one  course,  my 
lust  to  nnother.  I  see  the  better  course  and  approve  it ;  I  follow 
the  worse  course." 


ROMANS  VII.    17,  18-30.  233 

Verse  17.  But  now  it  is  no  longer  I  that  work  it  out, 
but  the  sin  dwelling  in  me. 

The  language  is  figurative;  Paul  personifies  Sin,  and  installs 
it  in  the  very  citadel  of  his  soul — dwelling  in  me.  The  verse  de- 
scribes the  inner  strife  in  every  unregenerate  man  between  his 
better  judgment  and  his  ruling  impulses  to  sin.  His  conscience 
commands,  but  his  passions  are  yet  more  imperious,  and  he  yields 
to  them.  "  Sin  dw^ells  in  me,  and  I  (weakling!)  work  out  what  it 
wills." 

Verses  18-20.  For  I  know  [am  aware]  that  in  me,  that 
is,  in  my  flesh,  (there  dwells  naught)  good ;  for  to  will  is 
present  with  me,  but  to  work  out  the  right,  not.  For  the 
good  which  I  will,  I  do  not ;  nay,  but  the  evil  which  I  will 
not,  this  I  practice.  But  if  what  I  will  not,  this  I  do,  it 
is  no  longer  I  that  w^ork  it  out ;  nay,  but  the  Sin  dwelling 
in  me. 

The  conjunction  for,  as  usual,  assigns  the  proof  of  the  pre- 
ceding proposition.  The  three  verses  give  the  proof  in  extenso. 
They  describe  the  habitual  conflict  in  man's  moral  being  between 
his  conscientious  impulse  to  do  right  and  the  ever-prevalent 
inclination  to  yield  to  liis  evil  appetites.  Normally,  his  better 
nature  points  him  in  one  direction ;  his  passions  drive  him  head- 
long in  the  other.  And  the  logical  conclusion  is  what  he  before 
asserted:  "It  is  not  I  (my  true  self)  that  am  in  control,  but  the 
sin  which  leads  me  captive  at  its  will." 

Yet  we  must  understand  this  declaration  of  the  impotence  of 
the  will  as  figurative  only,  or  at  least  as  but  a  partial  truth.  It 
expresses  the  position  of  the  sinner,  who  sees  how  hopeless  the 
appeal  to  law  for  justification,  but  who  at  the  same  time  ignores 
the  other,  and  efficient,  justification  from  faith.  And  so,  all 
through  the  paragraph,  Paul  is  far  from  disclaiming  personal 
responsibility  for  what  he  does.  He  is  ever  conscious  that  he  sins 
voluntarily,  and  can  abstain  from  sinning ;  though  so  strong  is  the 
surge  of  his  passions,  he  declares  himself  unable  to  resist.  It  is 
the  common  plea  of  unregenerate  men,  who  palter  with  their  con- 
victions and  their  conscience.  But  it  is  in  this  very  sense  of 
amenability  that  constitutes  the  strife  in  his  bosom.  The  sinner 
writhes  in  the  folds  of  the  anaconda;  but,  unlike  Vergil's  Laocoon, 
he  can  uncoil  the  folds,  and  be  free,  if  he  really  wills  it.     The  strife 


234  EXPOSITIOX. 

in  liis  bosom  can  end  only  in  his  stupefj'ing  his  coiiscionce,  or  in 
his  submission  of  his  will  to  the  obi-dience  of  Christ.  With  most 
men  it  continues  till  the  end  of  life  ;  continues  until,  too  often, 
habit  has  hardened  into  "another  law,  within  their  members." 
They  "  resolve  and  reresolve  ;  then  die  the  same." 

Verse  21-23.  I  find  then  the  law  to  me  who  will  to 
do  the  right,  that  the  evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  ac- 
cord w^ith  the  Law  of  God  after  the  inward  man ;  but  I  see 
a  different  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law 
of  my  mind,  and  leading  me  captive  to  the  law  of  sin, 
w^hich  is  in  my  members. 

These  verses,  introduced  by  the  V4'ords  I  find  then,  express  the 
despondent  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter.  It  sums  uj)  the  case 
of  the  sinner  from  the  standpoint  of  law — that  is,  from  the  stand- 
point of  Judaism — in  which  man  is  speculatively  left  to  his  natural 
strength  to  work  out  his  own  justification. 

The  construction  of  the  twenty-first  verse  is  involved,  but  the 
sense  is  plain.  The  substantive  clause,  that  the  evil  is  present 
with  me,  is  appositive  to  the  law,  and  explains  it.  Tlie  meaning 
is,  "I  find,  then,  the  law  that  the  evil  is  present  with  me;  this 
the  law  I  find  confi-onting  me  when  I  will  to  do  the  right." 

The  word  law  here  is  used  in  a  peculiar  sense.  It  is  not,  as  in 
previous  occurrences  of  the  word,  a  ride  of  action;  but,  as  in  the 
oft-abused  phrase,  "law  of  nature."  means  only  a  uniform  order 
of  sequence,  the  established  condition  of  things.  To  the  self- 
indulgent  sinner  it  amounts  to  the  constant,  enchaining  habit.  The 
sinner  has  yielded  himself  to  the  dominance  of  his  "  pleasant  vices 
until  they  have  become  instruments  to  plague  him ;  the  wheel  has 
come  full  circle,"  and  he  feels  tliat  he  can  not  (that  is,  he  u'ill  not) 
throw  off  their  dreadful  incubus.  Dr.  Jekyll  sometimes  abandons 
himself,  wantonly,  to  do  evil,  in  the  character  of  Mr.  Hyde.  At 
last,  to  his  dismay,  he  becomes  the  malignant  Mr.  Hyde,  and  dies 
in  the  vain  effort  to  recover  his  proper  self.  The  fallen  archangel 
in  Pandemonium  boasted  that  he  would  "ascend  and  repossess  his 
native  seat;"  but  he  never  did  it. 

In  the  twenty-second  verse,  the  word  accord  might  be  equally 
well  translated  by  "sympathize,"  but  certainly  not  by  "rejoice 
in."  It  does  not  express  exultation,  but  only  the  sinner's  in- 
stinctive, involuntary,  shuddering  moral  approval  of  the  Law  of 


ROMANS  VII.    24,  25.  235 

God  which  condemns  him.     The  unconverted  sinner,  like  Satan  in 
Paradise, 

" Feels  how  awful  goodness  is,  and  sees 

Virtue  in  her  shape  how  lovely ;  sees,  and  pines 
His  loss."  — "  Paradise  Lost,"  iv,  847. 

In  verse  16  the  word  concede  denotes  the  assent  of  the 
reason;  accord  (or  sympathize)  denotes  tlie  movement  of  the 
feelings.  Even  unregenerate  men  intuitively  approve  goodness 
and  virtue.  This  approval  the  apostle  expresses  by  the  phrase, 
according  to  the  inward  man;  which  term  denotes  simply 
man's  moral  being  as  "  made  in  tlie  image  of  God,"  but  without 
connoting  either  regenerateness  of  nature  or  unregenerateness. 
Here,  however,  it  is,  of  course,  the  latter. 

In  verse  23  the  phrase,  the  law  of  my  mind,  is  but  another 
term  for  the  Law  of  God,  as  it  stands  approved  by  my  mind,— by 
my  reason  and  conscience  ;  and  the  phrase,  the  law  of  sin,  is  an 
enlarged  description  of  the  law  named  in  verse  21.  "The  law  of 
sin"  is  the  fixed  hahit  which  is  in  his  members,  the  habit  of 
instant,  and  facile,  and  fatal  compliance  with  sin. 

Such  is  Paul's  description  of  the  helpless  and  hopeless  condi- 
tion of  the  natural  man  before  the  Law,— a  slave  to  sin,  hating 
his  fetters,  yet  ever  hugging  them  closer  to  himself.  It  Is  the 
apostle's  portrait  of  himself  that  he  has  limned— his  portrait  in 
the  days  of  his  Jewish  seeking  after  God  according  to  the  ways  of 
his  fathers  ;  but  it  is  also  tlie  portrait  of  any  introspective  and 
serious  man.  The  description  finds  its  parallel,  with  greater  or 
less  clearness  and  intensity,  in  all  human  experience,  in  Christian, 
in  Jewish,  and  in  heathen  lands  alike.  Nor  did  Paul,  nor  does  any 
man,  find  any  way  of  relief  outside  of  the  gospel.  "Man  is  not 
justified  from  works  of  law,  nor  at  all  except  through  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ."     (Gal.  ii,  16.) 

Verses  24,  25.  Wretched  man,  I !  Who  will  deliver  me 
from  this  body  of  death?  Thanks  be  to  God  [deliverance 
will  be]  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord.  Accordingly,  then, 
I  myself  with  the  mind  indeed,  serve  the  Law  of  God,  but 
w^ith  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin. 

The  expression  this  body  of  death  means  tliis  body  which  is 
made  the  sway  of  death.  We  may  compare  with  it  tlie  expression, 
"  the  body  of  sin"  (Rom.  vi,  6),  as  explained  by  Kom.  vi,  12,  "Let 


236  EXPOSITION. 

not  sin  lord  it  in  your  body,  so  tliat  yo  shall  obey  its  lusts."  So  in  our 
text,  Paul  describes  tlu-  body  as  tlif  tool,  tlie  nicdiuni,  of  death; 
and  conceives  of  himself,  in  his  inward  humanity,  his  higher  self, 
as  the  helpless  slave  and  victim  of  his  own  body.  He  resolves 
aright,  but  is  swept  away  from  his  good  resolutions,  by  tliis  body 
of  api)Ctite,  and  of  sin,  and  of  death.  From  the  domination  of  this 
body  he  cries  to  be  delivered,  of  course  not  by  a  literal  death,  but 
by  a  moral  revolution,  a  new  order  of  things,  which  will  put  his 
now  masterful  body  beneath  liis  foot,  and  make  him  lord  of  himself. 

The  last  clause  in  the  cliapter,  passing  over  the  interjectiunal 
clause  Thanks  be  to  God !  as  a  mere  j)arenthesis,  is  logically 
connected  by  the  conjunction  therefore  with  the  whole  of  the 
preceding  paragraph.  It  must  be  taken  accordingly  as  the  sum- 
ming up  of  the  entire  discussion  from  the  seventh  verse.  It  is  the 
utterance  still  of  the  unregenerate  Jew,  the  deliberate  conclusion 
of  a  man  at  war  with  himself.  Nevertheless,  the  emphatic  pronoun 
I  myself  is  probably  suggested  by  the  words  in  the  parenthesis. 
"  I  myself"  evidently  contrasts  the  apostle,  in  his  own  strength 
(which  is  but  weakness),  under  the  Law,  with  the  man  that  finds 
deliverance  in  Christ. 

The  word  I  serve  is,  literally,  "I  slave  it."  (Rom.  vii,  6.) 
The  saying,  "  Witli  my  mind  I  am  a  slave  to  the  Law"  denotes  first, 
doubtless,  that  the  apostle  with  all  his  reason  and  conscience,  sides 
with  the  Law  of  God  ;  but  the  verb  "  I  slave  it"  also  connotes  that 
this  approval  is  not  a  joyful  one.  For  an  unregenerate  man  it 
smacks  of  slavery.'  He  renders  this  tribute  to  the  Law,  not  because 
he  loves  it,  but  because  he  must!  "  With  my  mind  (not  with  my 
heart),  I  serve  the  Law  of  God  ;  but  with  my  flesh  (the  seat  and  tool 
of  the  appetites),  I  serve  the  law  of  sin."  Hitherto,  the  apostle 
(that  is,  the  Jew  under  the  dispensation  of  Law),  has  seen  but  one 
thing,  sin  and  Sinai.  He  has  had  no  vision  or  conception  of  any- 
tliing  else.  In  accordance  with  his  line  of  thought,  from  the 
standpoint  of  Jewish  law-,  he  has  talked  laiv;  and  has  not  seemed 
to  have  thought  of  any  other  justification  than  through  law.  Until 
at  last !  Desperate  of  relief  from  law,  at  last  he  cries,  "Who  'will 
deliver  me?  The  truth  and  the  light  burst  on  him,  and  the  joy- 
ful words  now  spring  to  his  lips,  Thanks!  through  Christ  I 
"  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  to  justification,  to  every  one  tliat  lias 
faith  "  (Rom.  x,  4)  ;  "  From  all  tilings  from  which  ye  could  not  be 
justified  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  in  him  every  one  that  has  faith  is 
justified"  (Acts  xiii,  39). 


CHAPTER    VIII. 


Verse  1.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to 
them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus. 

In  attempting  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter  we  must  keep 
in  mind  the  dogmatic  aim  of  the  Epistle  as  already  described.  It 
treats  of  but  one  thing,  justification  before  God  ;  and  involves  but 
the  two  questions:  First,  Who  may  be  justified?  and,  second,  On 
u-Jiat  ground  may  they  be  justified?  The  common  interpretation, 
that  the  Epistle  is  a  complete  body  of  divinity,  a  general  ti-eatise 
of  theology,  and  that  the  first  five  chapters  discuss  the  doctrine  of 
justification  and  the  next  three  (vi-viii)  the  doctrine  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  untenable.  The  subject  of  sanctification 
does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  Epistle  any  more  than  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  And  any  interpretation  of  the  epistle, 
or  any  leading  section  of  it,  that  brings  sanctification  to  the  front, 
misses  the  apostle's  dogmatic  aim,  and  reads  into  his  words  mean- 
ings which  (though  possibly  true  in  themselves)  are  not  logically 
in  place,  and  which  displace  other  meanings  of  more  moment  to 
this  symmetric  presentation  of  "  his  gospel." 

In  the  seventh  chapter  the  apostle  has  shown  that,  to  the  Jews 
who  appeal  to  the  Law  for  justification,  there  is  condemnation, 
nothing  but  condemnation.  There  is  no  relief  to  the  gloomy  pic- 
ture which  he  has  painted  of  the  hopelessness  of  pardon  and  peace 
thi'ough  law.  "As  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  law  are  under  a 
curse."  (Gal.  iii,  10.)  But  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  chapter 
he  turns  from  these  Jewish  zealots  of  law,  who  yet  find  no  com- 
fort in  it,  to  the  Gentile  believers  in  Christ,  and  to  their  justifica- 
through  faith.  His  first  words  declare  the  far  different  condition 
of  the  Gentiles  who  are  "  not  under  law:"  There  is  no  condem- 
nation to  those  who  are  in  Christ.  This  is  his  description  of 
the  Gentiles  specifically  in  contradistinction  from  the  Jews  who 
appeal  to  law,  and  are  '*  under  the  curse."    The  Gentiles  are,  con- 

237 


238  EXPOSITION. 

coptually,  those  "who  are  in  Clirist,"  justifit'd  in  him.  They  fill 
the  apostle's  horizon,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews.  And  liis  dis- 
cussion throughout  the  eighth  chapter  is  with  regard  to  them 
exclusively.  It  is  true  that  he  does  not  use  the  word  "  Gentiles" 
in  this  chapter;  but  his  line  of  thought  is  antithetic  to  that  of  the 
seventh  chapter,  which  treats  of  the  Jews,  and  the  terms  he  here 
employs,  and  tlie  parallelism  with  his  sayings  elsewhere,  expressly 
in  regard  to  tlie  Gentiles,  detennine  the  limitations  of  his  mean- 
ing. The  discussion  here  goes  on  under  the  quiet  assumption  that 
he  is  speaking,  not  of  all  mankind  collectively,  including  the  Jews, 
nor  yet  of  the  Jews  apart  from  others,  but  of  the  Gentiles  specific- 
ally as  such,  of  the  Gentiles  alone.  Numerically,  the  Gentiles  were, 
of  course,  the  vast  majority  of  the  race  ;  but  though  that  fact  was, 
doubtless,  ever  present  in  Paul's  thought,  yet  the  sense  of  their 
vastness  of  number  was  lost  in  the  more  significant  thought  that 
they  were  "  Gentiles,"  with  all  that  the  word  connoted.  It  was  of 
them  as  Gentiles,  as  the  real  elect  of  God,  that  he  thought  and 
wrote. 

In  thrs  verse,  the  word  therefore  expresses  the  connection  of 
the  chapter  with  something  in  the  preceding  discussion.  The 
nearest  immediate  point  of  tangency  for  this  connection  is  Paul's 
confession  of  faith,  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse  of  the  seventh  chap- 
ter: "I  shall  be  rescued  through  Jesus  Christ."  But  the  logical 
conclusion  in  our  text  justifies  us  in  giving  the  word  "therefore" 
a  still  wider  reference,  and  including  as  its  premises  the  entire 
previous  discussion  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  from 
faith.  In  the  seventh  chapter,  the  apostle  has  shcnvn  that  the  re- 
liance of  the  Jews  upon  law  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture,  or  in 
human  experience.  "  By  works  of  law  will  no  flesh  be  justified." 
And  he  concludes  that  part  of  the  discussion  with  the  despairing 
words,  "  Wretched  man,  I ;  who  will  rescue  me  ?"  This  question, 
the  apostle,  once  in  the  days  of  his  ignorance  and  adhesion  to 
Moses,  could  not  have  answered  ;  or  would  have  answered  it  amiss. 
The  whole  of  the  seventh  chapter  declares  his  unavailing  struggle, 
a  Jew,  a  Pharisee,  with  this  great  spiritual  problem.  But  now, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  gospel,  a  Christian,  he  is  able  to  an- 
swer, "I  thank  God,  I  shall  be  rescued  through  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord."  Here  is  Paul's  new  profession  of  faith.  He  no  hmger 
looks  to  Moses  for  justification,  but  to  Christ.  He  has  come  to  be- 
lieve that  "  No  man  can  come  to  the  Father  except  through  him  " 
(John  xiv,  6) ;  "  His  is  the  only  name  given  under  heaven,  whereby 


ROMANS  VIII,  f.  239 

we  must  be  saved"  (Acts  iv,  12)  ;  "Christ,  and  not  Moses,  is  our 
wisdom  and  justification  and  satisfaction  and  redemption"  (1  Cor. 
i,  30).  Yet,  in  point  of  fact,  even  under  the  Law  of  Moses,  the 
gospel  plan  had  all  along  been  the  only  way  by  wliich  any  man  was 
ever  really  justified.  "Apart  from  law,  God's  plan  of  justification 
has  been  manifested,  being  witnessed  to  by  the  Law,  and  the 
Prophets.  God's  plan  of  justification  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  unto  all  who  exercise  faith  [Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews] ;  for 
there  is  no  difference  among  men."  (Rom.  iii,  21.)  But  it  was 
only  now  that  Paul  had  come  to  understand  this  simple  and  gra- 
cious scheme. 

Verse  2.  For  the  la-w  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 
enfreed  me  from  the  la^w  of  the  sin  and  the  death. 

This  ratiocinative  structure  of  Paul's  sentences  is  a  marked 
feature  in  his  writings.  The  argumentative  conjunction  for  is 
his  favorite  connective.  It  is  found  one  hundred  and  fifty  times 
in  this  Epistle,  and  seventeen  times  in  this  chapter,  everywhere 
explicative,  and  never  merely  continuative.  The  word  here  con- 
nects back  to  the  word  "  no  condemnation  "  in  the  previous  verse : 
"There  is  no  condemnation  ;  for  Christ  freed  me  from  the  damna- 
tory law."  In  this  verse  Paul  still  retains  the  singular  pronoun 
"I,"  which  had  such  rhetorical  prominence  in  the  seventh  chapter ; 
but  as  it  is  not  personal,  but  only  representative,  he  drops  it  after 
this  verse. 

The  word  law  here  does  not  mean  either  "  statute  "  or  "order 
of  succession,"  the  two  general  senses  of  "  law;"  but  rather  prin- 
ciple or  prevalence.  The  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  is 
the  supremacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  brings  life  to  the  soul. 
This  "life"  is  the  "life  which  is  realized  in  Christ  Jesus."  Paul 
uses  the  same  words  to  Timothy:  "The  promise  of  life  which  is 
in  Christ  Jesus."  (2  Tim.  i,  1.)  He  that  is  "in  Christ"  is  a 
sharer  with  him  in  his  life,  as  Jesus  promised:  "The  Spirit  will 
take  of  that  which  is  mine,  and  will  declare  it  to  you."  (John 
xvi,  14.)  In  a  similar  way,  the  law  of  sin  and  death  means 
the  dominance  or  sway  of  sin  and  death  in  our  sinful  nature. 
From  the  dominion  of  "this  law  in  my  members"  (Rom.  vii,  23), 
the  "law  of  the  Spirit  freed  me."  The  historical  term  here  carries 
us  back  to  the  great  act  of  redemption,  in  which  Christ,  by  his 
death,  enfreed  us,  "  emancipated  "  us,  from  slavery  to  the  law  of 
sin  and  death.     Paul's  pronouns  in  this  passage  illustrate  how,  as  if 


240  EXPOSITION. 

quite  unconsciously,  he  chiingcs  his  standpoint  from  time  to  time, 
yet  all  the  while  having  but  one  real  sul)ject  in  his  mind.  In  this 
verse  he  says,  Christ  set  me  free;  in  the  fourth  verse  he  says, 
"that  the  law  may  be  fullilled  in  us;"  in  the  fifth  verse  he  says, 
^^  they  that  are  accoi'ding  to  the  Spirit,  mind  the  things  of  the 
Spirit ;"  and  in  the  ninth  verse  he  says,  "  Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but 
in  the  Spirit."  His  words  change,  but  not  his  thought.  Though 
Paul's  gospel  recognizes  that  Christ's  redemption  is  operative  nor- 
mally, constructively,  for  every  member  of  the  race,  yet  through- 
out the  passage,  throughout  tlie  chapter,  he  thinks  of  the  Gentiles 
only,  and  in  effect  speaks  in  regard  to  the  Gentiles  only.  Some- 
times he  speaks  of  himself  as  one  of  them  :  "  For  I  have  become  as 
ye  are"  (Gal.  iv,  12)  ;  sometimes  he  speaks  of  them;  sometimes 
directly  to  them. 

Verse  3.  For,— the  thing  impossible  to  the  Law,  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh, — God,  having  sent  his  own 
Son  in  sameness  with  the  flesh  of  sin,  and  for  sin,  con- 
demned the  sin,  in  the  flesh. 

Tlie  grammatical  construction  has  been  in  debate.  The 
Autliorized  and  the  Revised  leave  the  sentence  anacoluthic  ;  but 
the  literal  translation  here  given,  correctly  punctuated,  yields  the 
proper  grammatical  construction,  and  the  appropriate  sense.  As 
to  the  connection,  the  word  thing  is  in  the  objective  case,  ap- 
positive  in  concept  to  the  verb  condemned.  As  to  the  sense,  the 
apostle's  thought  is,  that  the  Law  is  w^eak,  or  impotent,  through 
the  proclivity  of  the  flesh  (unregenerate  human  nature)  to  sin;  a 
proclivity  that  the  Law  can  not  overcome  or  eradicate.  AVe  must 
not  interpret  the  saying  that  the  Law  could  not  condemn  sin  in 
the  flesh  as  meaning,  "could  not  reprobate  sin,  or  pass  sentence 
upon  it;"  for  this  is  just  what  it  could  do,  and  it  was  the  only 
thing  it  could  do.  It  brought  sin  out  in  darker  colors ;  it  multi- 
plied, accentuated,  the  "offense;"  it  slew  the  sinner.  But  it 
could  not  give  life  !  Law  when  it  came  into  collision  with  sin,  had 
not  its  primal  justificatory  function,  but  only  its  condemnatory 
function.  It  could  pass  judgment  upon  sin  ;  but  it  could  not  slay 
sin.  This  latter  point  is  what  Paul  meant  by  the  "inability  of  the 
Law  to  condemn  sin  ;"  he  meant  only  tliat  it  could  not  annul  sin 
in  the  flesh.  "  But  w^hat  the  Law  could  not  do,  the  atonement  of 
Christ  was  adequate  to  do.  God  sent  his  Son  in  the  sameness  with 
sinful  man,  and  as  an  atonement  for  sin,  and  through  him  con- 
demned and  slew  sin  in  the  flesh." 


ROMANS  VIII,  3.  241 

The  phrase  "flesh  of  sin"  does  not  imply  that  the  flesh  is 
sinful  in  itself;  but  means  only  that  the  body,  or  our  physical 
human  nature,  is  the  seat  of  the  appetites,  and  so  becomes  the 
seat  of  sin.  The  body  is  material,  and  has  no  moral  quality  ;  the 
I  will  alone  is  sinful.  But  as  "  the  flesh"  is  the  pander  to  the  sinful 
appetites,  and  is  corrupt  and  defiled  by  sin,  it  is  easy  by  a  rhetor- 
ical turn,  to  call  it  "  the  sinful  flesh."  Yet  in  our  generic  human 
nature  there  was  no  essential  sinfulness  or  corruptness,  so  that 
"  the  Word  should  not  become  flesh,  and  dwell  among  us"  (John 
i,  14)  ;  "He  was  manifested  in  flesh"  (1  Tim.  iii,  16)  ;  yet  "was 
himself  without  sin."  It  was  in  this  flesh,  which,  in  all  other  men, 
is  proclive  to  sin,  that  Christ  was  born:  "God  sent  him  in  the 
sameness  with  sinful  flesh."  "For  both  he  who  sanctifies,  and 
they  who  are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one.  .  .  .  Since,  then,  they  were 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also  in  like  manner  partook  of  the 
same;  that  through  his  death,  he  may  destroy  him  that  has  the 
power  of  death."  (Heb.  ii,  11,  14.)  Christ  came  in  the  sameness 
with  human  nature,  not  in  a  semblance.  He  was  a  real  man,  not 
a  phantom,  as  the  Docetists  taught.  Christ's  supernatural  con- 
ception and  birth  from  the  Virgin  Mary,  gav^e  him  all  of  human 
nature,  without  the  racial  entail  of  sin.  It  is  true  that  this  great 
fact,  reported  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  not  alluded  to  in  the 
Epistle.*  Yet  Paul's  silence  is  not  an  evidence  of  ignorance  of  the 
facts,  or  of  disbelief.  On  the  contrai-y,  the  apostle's  abundant 
teaching  of  Christ's  incarhation  is  reconcilable  with  it  all,  if  it 
does  not  imply  it  all. 

The  phrase  and  for  sin  is  a  common  one  in  the  Septuagint ;  it 
is  found  fifty-five  times  in  Leviticus  alone  ;  and  is  often  translated, 
rather  freely,  in  the  Authorized,  by  the  term  "a  sin-offering." 
Yet  the  noun  "sin"  standing  alone,  never,  of  itself,  has  the 
meaning  of  "a  sin-offering,"  not  even  in  Paul's  words:  "Him  who 
knew  no  sin,  he  made  sin  for  us"  (2  Cor.  v,  21),  where,  as  so  con- 
stantly in  Hebrew,  a  substantive  is  used  for  an  adjective ;  and  the 
word  means,  forensically,  sinful,  guilty.  "  Him  who  knew  no  sin, 
God  counted  sinful  in  our  stead."  The  phrase  "  and  for  sin  "  finds 
its  explanation  in  the  words  of  Peter,  "  Christ  once  for  all  suffered 


*  Paul  knew  Christ  only  as  the  risen  Lord,  glorified  and  divine;  and, 
therefore,  probably  dwelt  less  in  his  thoughts,  and  in  his  writings,  on  the 
details  and  incidents  of  the  Savior's  earthly  life.  He  must  have  known  of 
all  these  temporal  facts  concerning  the  humanity  of  Jesus;  but  they  paled 
and  receded  before  the  splendors  of  the  Vision  that  he  saw  on  the  way  to 
Dam.ascus,  and  of  the  Vision  that  he  saw  in  the  temple. 
16 


'24-2  EXPOSITION. 

for  our  sins"  (1  Pot.  iii,  18)  ;  and  in  the  words  of  John,  "And  he 
liimself  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  (1  John  ii,  2.)  The  words 
"  for  sin  "  in  our  text  assign  the  occasion  for  Christ's  coming,  that, 
by  his  death,  he  might  atone  for  the  sin  of  the  world.  Aside  from 
this  need,  there  is  no  satisfactory'  explanation  of  Christ's  incar- 
nation. 

In  the  saying  "he  condemned  (that  is,  abolished)  sin,  in  the 
flesh."  we  must  connect  tlie  plirase  "  in  the  flesh  "  not  with  the 
noun  "  sin,"  but  with  the  verb  "  condemned,"  just  as  in  Ephesians, 
"Having  annulled  in  his  flesh  the  enmity."  Thus  construed,  the 
word  "flesh,"  in  the  sentence  "He  condemned  in  his  flesh  the 
sin,"  refers  to  Christ's  own  body,  and  expresses  his  vicarious  death 
on  the  cross,  by  which  he  was,  constructively,  "made  sin  [sinful] 
for  us."  "  He  died  as  to  sin"  (Rom.  vi,  10),  forensically,  in  order 
to  condemn  sin  as  exliibited  in  men,  and  to  abolisli  it.  "We  died 
with  him  once  for  all ;  and  consequently  sin  has  no  longer  a  legal 
sway  over  us ;  as  is  expressed  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  4.  In  order  that  the  justification  of  the  Law  may- 
be fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  according  to  flesh,  but 
according  to  spirit. 

The  primal  purpose  of  law  was  not  condemation,  but  justifica- 
tion. Its  voice  to  man  was,  "These  things  do,  and  live."  And 
man  would  have  been  justified  by  law  except  for  the  intrusion  of 
sin,  which  perverted  it  into  a  law  of  condemnation.  But  now  the 
vicarious  death  of  Christ  has  condemned  sin,  and  canceled  its 
guilt,  in  order  that  tlie  justification,  which  tlie  law  was  intended  to 
effect,  but  which  it  failed  to  effect  on  account  of  sin,  may  be  yet 
fulfilled  in  us.  But  it  is  fulfilled  in  us  now,  not  through  works  of 
law,  but  through  faith  in  Christ.  Tiiis  justification  through  Christ 
attaches  normally  from  birth  to  all  the  race  ;  but  for  adults  who 
have  the  capacity  and  the  resi)onsibiIity  of  personal  choice  it  is 
practically  realized  by  those  only  who  are  spiritually  minded:  who 
walk,  not  on  tlie  lower  plane  of  the  flesh,  obedient  to  its  evil 
impulses,  but  on  the  higlier  i)lane  of  the  spirit,  the  inner  life, 
approving  and  practicing  wlint  is  right.  The  word  spirit  here,  as 
the  connection  shows,  means  man's  own  inwai-d  nature :  and  so  in 
some  of  the  other  places  in  these  verses,  from  the  fourth  to  the 
ninth,  inclusive.  But  the  same  woi-d  may  mean  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  difference  is  marked  in  the  translation  by  ])rinting  Spirit  and 
spirit. 


ROMANS  VIII.    5,  6,  7,  S.  243 

Verse  5.  For  they  that  are  according  to  flesh  mind  the 
things  of  the  flesh ;  but  they  that  are  according  to  spirit, 
the  things  of  the  spirit. 

The  expression  here,  to  be  according  to  flesh — according  to 
spirit,  means  ahnost  the  same  as  the  expression  in  the  previous 
verse,  "to  walk  according  to  flesh — according  to  spirit."  The  two 
classes  described  are  those  that  live  and  are  in  the  sphere  of  the 
lower,  baser  motive  and  aim,  and  those  that  are  in  the  sphere  of 
the  liigher  and  nobler  motive..  The  one  class  naind  the  things  of 
flesh  ;  that  is,  they  savor  of,  or  are  prepense  to  these  things  ;  their 
thoughts  and  affections  are  directed  to  the  gratification  of  their 
grosser  animal  appetites  ;  and  the  other  class  mind  the  things  of 
the  spirit,  the  loftier  things  of  their  better  nature:  "tlnj  seek 
the  things  that  are  above." 

Verse  6.  For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death  ;  but  the 
mind  of  the  spirit  is  life  and  peace. 

The  two  clauses  characterize  the  diverse  tendencies  of  human 
nature,  and  the  diverse  issues  of  each.  The  word  mind,  "mind- 
ing" (or  possibly  we  might  say  "  mindedness  "),  expresses  the  pro- 
pension,  or  settled  bent,  of  the  animal  man,  or  of  the  spiritual  man. 
The  affections  and  acts  of  the  one  tend  to  death ;  of  the  other,  to 
life  and  peace. 

Verse  7,  8.  Because  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity 
against  God:  for  it  is  not  subjected  to  the  Law  of  God; 
for  neither  can  it  be;  but  they  that  are  in  flesh  can  not 
please  God. 

The  flesh  is  prepense  to  evil ;  it  is  absorbed  in  the  impulse  to 
self-gratification  ;  it  does  not  submit  to  the  restraints  of  law.  The 
appetites  of  the  flesh  demand  forbidden  fruit;  it  eats,  and  thus, 
in  the  figurative  language  describing  the  Fall,  "becomes  God  to 
itself"  (Gen.  iii,5)  ;  that  is,  it  usurps  what  belongs  to  God,  namely, 
to  make  its  own  law.  They  who  live  in  this  sphere  of  self  can  not 
please  God  ;  their  carnal  life,  the  mindedness  of  the  flesh,  is 
enmity  towards  God,  and  is  death.  Yet,  under  the  gospel  scheme, 
those  -who  are  now  in  the  flesh  may  come  to  be  in  the  spirit. 
Such  are  they  whom  Paul  addresses  in  the  next  verse. 

This  verse  and  the  tenth  verse  give  us  other  instances  of  the 
Hebrew  construction  of  substantives  for  adjectives:  enmity  for 
hostile  ;  life  for  alive. 


244  EXPOSITION. 

Verse  9.  But  ye  are  not  in  flesh ;  nay,  but  in  spirit,  if, 
in  fact,  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  you.  But  if  any  man  has 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  this  man  is  not  his. 

Notice  tliat  the  hyi)Olhptical  conjuiiclioii  if,  twice  used  in  this 
verse,  with  the  indicative  mode  (if  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in 
you,  and,  if  any  one  has  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ),  expresses 
concepts  of  fact,  and  not  of  contingency,  as  in  tlie  Authorized 
("dwell,  have"),  and  in  the  Revised  ("  if  80  he"). 

These  words  include,  by  parity  of  conditions,  all  men  who  ac- 
cept Christ  as  the  ground  of  justification.  But  the  apostle  here 
addresses  only  the  Gentiles,  whom  the  Jews  regarded  outside  of  the 
provisions  of  the  gospel;  but  whom  he  liokls  as  "  in  Christ  Jesus." 
(Rom.  viii,  1.)  He  uses  the  emphatic  pronoun:  "But  ye.  Gentiles, 
are  not  in  flesh."  This  phrase,  in  flesh,  has  sometimes  a  literal 
significance,  "in  the  body;"  as  the  apostle  uses  it  elsewhere  of 
himself,  "It  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but  Christ  lives  in  me ;  but 
the  life  which  I  now  live  in  flesh,  I  live  in  the  faith  of  the  Son  of 
God  "  (Gal.  ii,  20)  ;  and  this  sense  holds  true  of  believers  in  Christ: 
"They  are  in  flesh."  But  the  phrase  sometimes  has  an  ethical 
significance,  meaning  tlie  carnal  affections.  It  is  in  this  ethical 
sense  that  Paul  uses  the  term  here  ;  and  he  says  to  the  Gentile 
believers,  "  Ye  are  not  in  flesh,  but  in  spirit.  Once  they  were  in 
flesh,  when  the  sinful  passions  in  their  members  were  "bringing 
forth  fruit  to  death"  (Rom.  vii,  5);  but  now  they  stand  in  new 
relations  to  law,  on  a  different  ethical  plane.  Ye  are  no  longer 
living  in  the  sensuous,  sensual,  carnal  sphere  of  flesh.  Ye  died  as 
to  sin,  in  the  person  of  Christ ;  and  now^  ye  serve  God  in  spirit.  If 
God's  Spirit  is,  in  fact,  in  you,  your  own  spirits  are  transformed, 
and  ye  live  in  the  higher  sphere  of  spirit,  and  not  of  sense. 

Verse  10.  But  if  Christ  is  in  you,  the  body,  indeed,  is 
dead  on  account  of  sin ;  but  the  spirit  is  life  on  account  of 
justiflcation. 

In  this  verse  we  have  two  simple  co-ordinate  clauses  (the 
body  is  dead;  but  the  spirit  is  life)  ;  where  a  classical  writer, 
or  a  modern  stylist,  would,  more  logically,  have  thrown  the  two 
into  one  complex  sentence,  or  period:  "Though  the  body  is 
dead,  yet  the  spirit  is  life."  Similarly,  in  other  places:  "Though 
he  counted  his  body  dead,  yet  he  wavered  not "  (Rom.  iv,  19,  20)  ; 
"Thanks  be  to  God,  that  though  ye  were  slaves  of  sin,  yet  ye 
obeyed  from  the  heart  "  (Rom.  vi,  17). 


ROMANS  VIII,  11.  245 

Union  with  Christ  is  the  ground  of  our  deliverance  from  sin 
and  death.  The  redemption  of  Christ  delivers  our  entire  hu- 
manity, body  and  spirit,  from  death,  but  its  redemptive  power  is 
not  at  once  manifested  equally  in  its  results,  tln-oughout  the  two 
departments  of  our  being.  The  spirit,  immaterial  in  its  substance, 
at  the  moment  of  faith  in  Christ,  is  justified,  and  regenerate,  and 
made  coheir  with  him  to  eternal  life.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  jus- 
tification, in  which  there  are  no  intermediate  or  half  steps,  that 
its  consummation  should  be  instant  and  complete.  But  it  is  dif- 
ferent with  regard  to  the  body.  So  far  as  the  operation  of  grace 
is  concerned,  the  body,  though  redeemed,  is  left,  for  the  present, 
as  it  was  before  the  spiritual  transformation  is  wrought  in  the  soul. 
The  body  is  material  in  its  organization,  animal,  sensual,  thrid  and 
rotten  with  sin  ;  and  is  not  delivered  immediately  from  the  dete- 
rioration and  physical  corruption  of  the  fall.  And  so  Paul  says, 
"  The  body  is  dead."  He  calls  it  dead,  not  figuratively,  but  liter- 
ally, physically  ;  yet  only  constructively  dead  at  present ;  it  is  as 
good  as  dead,  because  it  is  doomed  to  die  at  the  end  of  a  tempo- 
rary life  on  earth,  but  with  the  promise  of  a  resurrection  to  eternal 
life  hereafter.  The  work  of  regeneration  does  not  change  the 
physical  body,  or  affect  it,  except  indirectly,  and  slowly,  through 
a  change  in  the  converted  man's  personal  habits.  Yet  the  redemp- 
tion has  planted  in  the  body,  for  all  men  alike,  the  promise  and 
potency  of  eternal  life.  But  this  restoration  will  come  only  in  the 
great  pallngenesia,  "  When  Christ  will  transform  this  body  of  hu- 
miliation into  conformity  witli  his  body  of  glory,  according  to  the 
working  with  which  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  to  himself." 
(Phil,  iii,  21.)  It  is  now  a  psychical  (animal)  body  ;  it  will  become 
a  spiritual  body  (1  Cor.  xv,  44)— a  body  the  same  as  now  in  sub- 
stance, but  reconstructed,  or,  as  Paul  says,  "  transformed"  (Phil, 
iii,  21),  for  the  new  spiritual  life.  This  is  the  promise  and  the 
prospect  that  Paul  holds  out  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  11.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  Jesus  from 
among  dead  men  dwells  in  you,  he  that  raised  Christ  Jesus 
from  among  dead  men  will  make  alive  also  your  mortal 
bodies,  on  account  of  his  Spirit  that  dwells  in  you. 

The  tenth  verse  declared  that  "  the  body  is  dead,  on  account 
of  sin;"  the  present  verse  declares  the  future  resurrection  of  the 
body  from  death.  Of  course  this  renewal  of  our  physical  life  will 
come  then,  as  the  i-enewal  of  our  spiritual  life  has  come  now,  "  on 


24G  EXPOSITION. 

account  of  justification."  Paul  cxjjrcsses  tlio  same  thought,  sub- 
stantially, by  saying,  on  account  of  his  Spirit  which  dwells  in 
us.  The  believer  who  has  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  himself 
has  an  a,ssurance  tiiat  this  mortal  body  will  yet  rise  immortal 
from  the  tomb,  lie  wlio  raised  the  dead  Christ  from  the  grave 
will  make  alive  also  our  mortal  (dead)  bodies  from  the 
grave,  because  of  his  Spirit  which  dwells  in  us.  We  shall  be 
united  with  Christ  in  the  sameness  with  his  literal  resurrection. 

There  are  several  points  in  this  verse  worthy  of  special  note: 
1.  The  two  names,  Jesus  and  Christ,  though  often  used  quite 
indifferently,  yet  do  not  seem  to  be  synonyms  here.  The  word 
"Jesus,"  which  was  the  "Savior's"  personal  name  ["Thou  shalt 
call  his  name  'Jesus,'  for  he  shall  'save'  his  people  from  their 
sins"  (Matt,  i,  21)],  expresses  that  he  was,  so  far  forth,  merely  a 
man*  who  was  dead,  and  was  "  raised  from  among  the  dead."  The 
second  name,"  Christ,"  which  was  his  official  designation  (though 
often  becoming  a  proper  noun),  expresses  that  he  stood  related  to 
us  as  our  Representative  and  Redeemer;  in  his  resurrection  we 
have  earnest  of  our  own.  Yet  the  words  are  not  in  contrast,  and 
must  not  be  emphasized  in  reading. 

2.  We  are  told,  here  and  elsewhere,  that  it  was  God  who  raised 
Christ  from  among  the  dead.  The  dead  Christ  could  not  raise 
himself  by  any  natural  or  supernatural  powers  of  his  own.  It  is 
true  that  he  said,  "I  will  rise,"  and  that  it  was  said  of  him  that 
"he  arose ;"  but  this  must  be  taken  to  express  the  substantive  re- 
sult, without  implying  his  own  agency  in  the  matter.  But  when 
the  agent  of  Christ's  resurrection  is  definitely  named,  it  is  always, 
as  here,  God,  the  Almighty.  This  is  expressly  said  at  least  twenty- 
four  times,  and  implied  fourteen  times  more. 

3.  It  is  also  expressly  asserted  here  (and  elsewhere)  that  it  is 
God  who  will  raise  up  our  dead  bodies  at  the  last  day.  Yet  we 
have  equally  explicit  declarations  that  Christ  will  be  the  agent  of 
the  last  resurrection.  The  statements  are  diverse,  but  not  con- 
tradictory. We  infer  that,  in  this  great  transaction,  Christ  will 
represent  his  Father.  His  government  is  a  delegated  one,  and 
provisional  only  ;  and  will  end  only  with  the  crowning  solemnities 
of  the  Judgment-day.  "Then  comes  the  end,  when  lie  will  sur- 
render the  kingdom  to  God  and  the  Father;  then  will  the  Son  also 
himself  be  subjected  to  him  .  .  .  that  God  may  be  all,  in  all ;" 
that  is,  "all  things  without  intermediary,  in  the  case  of  all  men." 
(ICor.  XV,  24,28.) 


ROMANS  VIII.    12,  13.  247 

4.  It  is  equally  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Agent  of  the  general 
resurrection  is  not  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit  (as  expressed  in  the 
Authorized  and  Revised,  "through  his  Spirit").  This  translation 
repi-esents  an  erroneous  Greek  reading.  The  translation  here 
given,  "on  account  of  his  Spirit,"  is  the  correct  one.  It  is  God's 
Spirit,  dwelling  in  us,  that  redeems,  and  molds,  and  fits  us,  body 
and  spirit,  to  be  heirs  of  eternal  life.  And  it  is  on  account  of  this 
Spirit,  which  dwells  in  us,  and  leavens  and  fashions  us  to  this  great 
issue,  that  we  shall  be  raised  up  in  the  last  day.  But  the  imme- 
diate Agent  of  the  resurrection  is  the  Lord  Jesus:  "For  if  we 
believe  that  Jesus  died,  and  rose  again,  so,  also,  those  who  fell 
asleep  will  God  through  Jesus  bring  with  him."     (1  Thess.  iv,  14.) 

Verse  12.  Accordingly,  therefore,  brethren,  we  are 
debtors,  not  to  the  flesh,  to  live  according-  to  flesh ; 

The  logical  structure  of  the  sentence  suggests  an  additional 
clause  at  the  end  of  the  verse:  "  We  are  debtors  not  to  the  flesh; 
.  .  .  hut  to  the  spirit."  The  word  debtors  implies  moral  obligation. 
We  are  under  obligation,  not  to  the  flesh,  the  baser,  animal  part 
of  our  nature,  to  live  in  accordance  with  its  lusts;  but  we  owe  it 
to  the  spirit  that  is  within  us,  the  nobler  part  of  our  being,  to  live 
in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  righteousness,  and  true  holiness. 
We  thus  serve  our  best  and  enduring  interests.  The  one  course 
leads  to  death,  the  other  leads  to  life,  eternal.  "  God  will  render 
to  every  man  according  to  his  works."     (Rom.  ii,  7.) 

Verse  13.  For  if  ye  live  according  to  flesh,  ye  will  die ; 
but  if,  by  the  spirit,  ye  put  to  death  the  practice  of  the 
body,  ye  will  live. 

The  verse  describes  the  diverse  consequences  which  naturally 
follow  the  two  diverse  coui'ses  of  life.  The  Authorized  translates 
"ye  shall  diw — ye  shall  live,  as  if  spoken  with  the  authority  of  a 
lawgiver.  The  correct  translation  is  that  given  in  the  text,  ye 
will  die — ye  w^ill  live,  as  the  words  of  a  preacher,  fortelling  the 
normal,  inevitable  result. 

The  word  spirit  here  must  be  taken  as  the  human  spirit ;  and 
the  phrase,  "  by  the  spirit,"  expresses  the  work  or  agency  of  man 
in  the  sphere  of  his  inward  religious  life,  against  the  flesh.  It  is 
in  this  sense  that  Paul  bids  the  Oolossians,  "  Put  off  tlie  old  man 
with  its  practices."  (Col.  iii,  9.)  The  body  must  be  interpreted 
as  equivalent  to  "  the  flesh  ;"  and  "  the  practices  of  the  body  "  are 


248  EXPOSITIOX. 

the  evil  moral  habits,  "  the  lusts  of  the  flesh."  These  the  believer 
can  put  to  death,  and  so  will  have  eternal  life.  "  He  that  sows 
to  the  flesh,  from  the  flesh  will  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  sows 
to  the  spirit  (his  inward  man),  from  the  spirit  will  reap  life 
eternal."     (Gal.  vi,  8.) 

Verse  14.  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
these  are  sons  of  God. 

The  woi-d  for  is  explicative  of  the  word  "  live  "  in  the  preceding 
verse.  They  wliu  slay  tlie  carnal  man,  have  life;  and  tiiey  who 
^'have  life,"  are  sons  of  God.  The  saying  is,  of  course,  uni- 
versally true  ;  not  less  true  of  Jews  than  of  Gentiles ;  but  Paul 
here  has  in  thought  only  the  Gentiles.  The  Jews  arrogated  to 
themselves  an  exclusive  sonship  with  God,  by  virtue  of  their  birth 
from  Abraham ;  but  Paul  here  declares  that  the  Gentiles  by  the 
yet  higher  title  of  a  spiritual  birth  are  "sons  of  God."  The  verse 
is  not  the  expression  of  a  new  religious  experience,  but  of  a  normal 
state  of  things,  such  that,  forensically,  even  Gentiles  are  God's 
children.  This  thought  of  Gentile  sonship  (and  not  of  Jews  only, 
or  preferably),  is  the  same  as  he  develops  in  the  ninth  cliaptcr: 
"  Not  the  children  of  the  flesh  [the  Jews,  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham], these  are  children  of  God  ;  but  the  children  of  the  promise 
[the  Gentile  believers]  are  counted  for  seed."  (Rom.  ix,  8.)  It 
is  the  same  thought  as  he  develops  at  large  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians:  "  For  ye  (Gentiles)  are  all  sons  of  God,  through  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  And  if  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
seed,  heirs  according  to  the  promise."     (Gal.  iii,  26,  29.) 

Verse  15.  For  ye  received  not  the  spirit  of  slavery, 
again,  unto  fear ;  but  ye  received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  in 
•which  we  cry  Abba,  Father. 

Tlie  apostle,  though  a  Jew,  has  so  identified  himself  witli  tlie 
Gentiles,  that,  in  writing  to  tliem,  he  almost  unconsciously  uses 
the  two  pronouns  ye  and  we  indifferently,  as  if  either,  or  both, 
would  suit  his  concept. 

The  best  commentary  on  this  passage  is  Paul's  parallel  saying 
to  the  Galatians,  who  were  Gentiles:  "  Because  ye  are  sons,  God 
sent  out  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts  [notice  the  inter- 
change of  the  pronouns  "ye"  and  "our"],  crying  Abba,  Father; 
so  that  thou  art  no  longer  a  slave,  but  a  son  ;  but  if  a  son,  also  an 
heir,  through  God"  (Gal.  iv,6):  and,  again,  to  the  Ephesians: 
"  Remember  that  ye,  once  the  GentUes  in  flesh,  were  at  that  time 


ROMANS  VIII,  16.  249 

without  Christ,  alienated  from  the  citizenship  of  Israel;  but  now 
in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  were  once  afar  off,  became  nigh  in  the 
blood  of  Christ."     (Eph.  ii,  11.) 

The  word  spirit  twice  used  in  this  verse,  expresses  the  con- 
scious sense  of  slavery  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  sonship  on  the  other. 
The  Gentiles  "  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime 
subject  to  slavery"  (Heb.  ii,  15),  did  not,  when  they  came  to 
believe  in  Christ,  receive  this  spirit  of  slavery  again,  with  a  view 
to  fear  the  judgment  to  come:  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  received 
the  filial  sense  of  adoption  into  God's  family,  as  his  sons,  in  which 
they  cry  Abba,  Father. 

The  word  Abba,  the  Aranipean  word  for  Father,  was  the 
vernacular  word  which  Jesus  used  in  his  own  prayers.  In  the 
garden,  he  said  "Abba,  Father,  .  .  .  take  this  cup  from  me." 
(Mark  xiv,  36.)  The  disciples,  who  also  spoke  Aramaean,  them- 
selves used  this  word.  Later,  when  they  came  to  write  in  Greek, 
they  kept  the  hallowed  word  of  the  Master ;  but,  of  course,  also 
translated  it  into  Greek,  for  the  understanding  of  those  who  knew 
no  Aramrean.  In  a  similar  way,  we  may  speak  of  "saying  the 
Pater  Noster,  our  Father." 

Verse  16.  The  Spirit  itself  bears  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  children  of  God ; 

The  Greek  word  for  Spirit,  and  the  pronouns  referring  to  it, 
are  of  the  neuter  gender.  It  is  not  irreverent  for  us  to  retain  the 
same  gender  in  English,  for  both  the  noun  and  the  pronouns. 
The  Authorized  says  "  itself  ;"  the  Revised  "  himself."  Yet  when 
Christ  spoke  of  the  Divine  Spirit  as  the  "  Comforter,"  he  used' 
necessarily  a  masculine  noun  •,.  and  the  pronoun  takes  the  same 
gender:  "  When  the  Comforter  shall  come,  whom  I  will  send,  the 
Spirit  of  truth  which  proceeds  from  the  Father,  he  will  testify  con- 
cerning me."     (John  xv,  26.) 

The  word  "spirit"  is  twice  used  in  this  verse  to  express 
personal  agents,  and  not  an  abstract  sense,  or  consciousness,  as  in 
the  preceding  verse.  The  words  mean,  first,  God's  Holy  Spirit; 
and  secondly,  man's  conscious  self,  or  spirit.  The  two  agents  bear 
concurrent  testimony  to  our  sonship  witli  God ;  the  Holy  Spirit 
reveals  the  fact  to  our  consciousness ;  and  our  own  human  spirit 
answers  back,  with  the  comforting  sense  of  adoption. 

The  point  which  the  apostle  makes  in  this  verse  is,  that, 
though  his  readers  arc  Gentiles,  nevertheless  God's  Spirit  bears 


250  EXPOSITION. 

them  witness  that  they  are  as  triilj'  children  of  God,  as  if  de- 
scendants of  Abraham.  He  uses  the  first  personal  pronouns,  our, 
we,  not  speaking  in  the  name  of  tlie  Church  universal  (and  cer- 
tiiinly  not  in  the  name  of  the  Jews),  but,  as  in  the  last  vei"sc, 
identifying  himself  with  his  Gentile  hearers.  It  was  in  this  same 
feeling  of  community,  or  oneness,  with  the  Gentiles,  that  he  said 
to  the  Galatian  Gentiles:  "But  wv,  brethren,  after  the  fashion  of 
Isaac,  are  children  of  promise"  (Gal.  iv,  28)  ;  "For  we  through 
the  Spirit  await  the  hope  of  justification  from  faith"  (Gal.  v,  5)  ; 
and  to  the  Philippian  Gentiles:  "For  we  are  the  circumcision" 
(Phil,  iii,  3).     [See  Note,  Rom.  viii,  31.] 

Verse  17.  But  if  children,  also  heirs,  heirs  indeed  of 
God,  but  coheirs  with  Christ;  if,  in  fact,  we  suffer  with 
him,  that  w^e  may  also  be  glorified  with  him. 

The  words  children  and  sons  are  usually  discriminated  from 
each  other.  "  Children  "  is  the  name  of  tenderer  concern  ;  "  sons" 
is  the  term  of  higher  note.  "  Childifn  "  marks  affection  ;  "  sons  " 
marks  respect.  "  Children  "  are  yet  minors  ;  "  sons  "  have  reached 
their  majority.  "As  long  as  the  heir  is  a  child  [in  his  non-age] 
he  is  under  guardians;  when  the  fullness  of  time  came  [the  date 
of  our  majority]  we  received  the  adoption  of  sons."  (Gal.  iv,  1.) 
But  the  aged  John  could  address  his  adult  hearers  as  "children," 
"little  children."  Christ  is  never  called  God's  "child;"  but 
always  God's  "  Son." 

The  word  "children  "  here  does  not  suggest  Paul's  associated 
notion  of  minors,  nor  John's  associated  notion  of  "  little,"  or 
"dear,"  but  describes  Gentiles  merely  as  members  of  God's  fam- 
ily. Of  these  Gentiles,  who  are  "  children  of  God,"  Paul  declares 
that,  by  virtue  of  that  relation,  they  are  also  God's  heirs;  and 
that,  since  they  are  "God's  heirs,"  they  are  also  coheirs  with 
Christ — "coheirs  to  the  inheritance  imperishable,  undeHled,  un- 
fiuliug,  kept  in  heaven  for  you"  (1  Pet.  i,  4).  The  word  "co- 
heirs" occurs  but  once  again  in  Paul's  writings,  and  with  the 
same  reference  to  the  Gentiles,  as  here  :  "  It  was  revealed  that  the 
Gentiles  are  coheirs  with  us  [the  Jews]  of  the  promise  in  CJlirist, 
through  the  gospel."     (Eph.  iii,  6.) 

In  both  clauses  of  the  verse  the  word  if  is  the  conjunction  of 
actual  fact.  In  the  second  clause  "if"  refers  to  the  word  "co- 
heirs" in  the  first  clause;  and  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that 
"  if  we  share  with  Christ  in  his  sufferings,  we  shall  also  share  with 


ROMANS  VIII,  IS.  251 

him  in  his  glory."  The  apostle's  tliought  here  is,  first,  of  Christ's 
manifold  sufferings  tliroughout  his  earthly  life  from  the  contra- 
diction of  sinners  and  the  bitter  buffetings  of  his  enemies.  In 
Christ's  eartlily  sufferings  his  followers  sliared.and  share,  literally. 
Christ  said,  "  If  they  persecuted  me,  they  will  persecute  also 
you."  (John  xv,  20.)  The  apostolical  history  testifies  how  abun- 
dantly this  was  fulfilled.  The  early  Christians  had  constant  occa- 
sion "  to  rejoice  in  reproaches,  in  persecutions,  in  distresses,  for 
Christ's  sake"  (2  Cor.  xii,  10).  John  was  the  only  one  of  the 
apostles  that  did  not  die  a  violent  death;  and  how  countless  the 
noble  army  of  martyrs  tluit  have  suffered  with  them  and  with 
tlieir  common  Master !  Paul's  concept  in  the  verse  is  that  in  all 
these  sufferings  of  Christ  we  share  either  actually  or  construct- 
ively. But,  secondly,  and  especially,  the  apostle's  tliought  is  of 
Christ's  vicarious. death  on  the  cross,  in  which  we  share,  but  only 
constructively.  The  apostle's  language  to  Timothy  covers  both 
phases  of  Christ's  sufferings  named  above,  and  of  our  suffering 
with  him:  "  If  we  died  with  him  [on  the  cross],  we  shall  also  live 
with  him:  if  we  endure  [with  him],  we  shall  also  reign  with  him." 
(2  Tim.  ii,  11.)  Similarly  Peter  says:  "  Ye  share  in  the  sufferings 
of  Clirist,  in  order  that  in  the  revelation  of  his  glory  ye  may  also 
rejoice  with  exultation."  (2  Pet.  iv,  13.)  As  he  passed  through 
these  bitter  sufferings  into  his  glory,  so  also  his  followers  must 
first  enter  into  the  "  fellowship  of  his  sufferings  "  (Phil,  iii,  10),  in 
both  the  senses  above,  in  order  to  enter  into  glory  with  him. 

It  is  from  this  thought  of  suffering  with  Christ  here  that  Paul 
passes,  in  the  next  paragraph,  to  a  description  of  the  transcendent 
glory  which  will  be  revealed  in  our  case  in  the  world  of  eternal 
recompense. 

Verse  18.  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  the  pres- 
ent time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory- 
a-going  to  be  revealed  to  us-ward. 

The  conjunction  for,  which,  as  usual,  is  explicative  and  con- 
firmatory of  what  precedes,  here  connects  back  to  the  last  words 
of  verse  17,  "that  we  may  be  glorified  with  him."  The  thought 
is,  Though  we  suffer  with  Christ,  yet  we  shall  be  glorified,  with 
him ;  glorified,  I  say ;  for  our  present  sufferings  will  be  eclipsed 
by  a  greater  glory  which  will  yet  be  revealed  in  our  persons.  The 
paragraph  .including  verses  18-25  is. logically  a  long  parenthesis, 
suggested  by  the  words  in  the  seventeenth  verse,  "we  shall  be  glo- 


252  EXPOSITION. 

riticd  witli  liim."  This  iJiiragruph  describes  the  sphere  and  the 
form  i)f  the  recompense  tluit  awaits  us.  It  declares  that  our  re- 
demption, wiiich  is  yet  onlj'  partially  realized  ["  the  spirit  is  alive, 
hid  the  hoihj  is  i/cl  dead"],  will  then  be  completed  by  the  reunion  of 
spirit  and  bod)/,  and  will  be  eternal. 

The  apostle's  word,  I  reckon,  is  the  term  of  mathematical 
computation.  In  the  light  of  this  reckoning,  our  sufferings  here 
("  though  now  for  a  little  while,  if  need  be,  we  are  made  to  sorrow 
in  manifold  trials"  (1  Pet.  i,6),)  ai-e  to  be  counted  as  of  small 
moment,  in  view  of  the  great  glory  which  awaits  us  in  the  world 
to  come.  The  pronoun  us,  in  the  final  phrase  ("to  us-ward,"  in 
was),  holds  an  important  place  in  the  exegesis  of  the  passage,  and 
must  not  be  lightly  passed  over.  In  the  first  place  this  pronoun 
"  us  "  can  not  be  taken  as  the  indirect  object  of  the  verb  revealed ; 
as  though  the  saying  meant  tliat  "the  glory  will  be  shown  us," 
that  is,  exhibited  to  our  view,  for  our  enlightenment.  To  express 
this  meaning  would  require  the  pronoun  to  be  in  the  dative  case, 
■hfxiv  "  to  us."  Thus  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians:  "The  things 
which  God  prepared  for  those  that  love  him  he  reveals  to  us,  rj/tXv, 
through  his  Spirit"  (1  Cor.  ii,  10)  ;  in  which  translation  the  woi-d 
"to"  is  merely  the  sign  of  the  dative  case.  And  this  meaning  is 
never  expressed  (as  in  this  ver.se)  with  the  preposition  in,  "  unto," 
"  as  to,"  "with  regard  to."  Secondh/:  We  must  give  the  preposi- 
tion in  the  phrase  in  rjixas  its  full  and  exact  significance,  "  to  us- 
ward,"  "  with  regard  to  us  ;"  and  the  passage  means  that  "  the  glory 
will  be  manifested  unto  us,  with  a  view  to  certain  definite  results, 
in  our  case,  in  our  persons,  in  our  body."  It  is  not  only  not  Paul's 
thought  that  this  glory  is  to  be  exhibited  spectacularly  to  our 
eyes,  or  revealed  verbally  to  our  understanding;  but  it  is  his  sole 
thought  that  this  glory  is  to  be  made  a  practical  objective  ex- 
perience in  our  bodies,  in  their  resurrection  from  the  grave. 

;o  r-J 
Verse  19.    For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature 

awaits  the  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God. 

The  description  in  this  verse  is  figurative,  and  very  dramatic. 
The  creature,  whatever  it  is,  is  personified,  and  endowed  with 
human  sensibilities,  and  human  activities.  Both  the  noun  and  the 
verb  in  this  sentence  are  compounded  with  the  intensive  woi-d 
d-rrb,  "afar"  (or,  from  afar);  and  wliile  the  general  meaning  is 
plain,  it  is  difficult  to  express  it  in  terse  and  exact  terms.    The 


ROMANS  VIII,  19.  253 

noun  translated  earnest  expectation,  or  "  longing,"  expresses 
the  attitude  and  feeling  of  one  standing  with  head  erect  looking 
eagerly  for  something  afar  off;®  and  the  verb  translated  awaits, 
in  like  manner,  expresses  the  action  of  one  who  watches  and  waits 
for  something  from  afar. 

The  word  creature  is  the  difficult  word  in  the  verse;  and  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  this  word  carries  with  it  the  explana- 
tion of  other  words  in  the  verse,  and  of  the  entire  passage,  to  the 
end  of  the  twenty-fifth  verse.  In  the  discussion  of  this  word  a 
close  adherence  to  the  meaning  given  to  the  prepositional  phrase, 
"to  ns-irard,"  in  the  eighteenth  verse,  becomes  doubly  important. 
This  prepositional  phrase,"  to  us-ward,"  or  "  as  touching  us,"  when 
critically  explained,  suggests  the  explanation  of  the  word  "crea- 
ture ;"  and  thus  leads  to  the  only  tenable  explanation  of  the  entire 
paragraph.  The  critics,  neglectful  of  this  direct  personal  refer- 
ence in  the  words  "to  us-ward,"  and  of  the  definite  exclusion  of 
other  things  thereby  suggested,  have  been  lead  into  many  purely 
fanciful  interpretations  of  the  word  "creature."  But  clearly  "  the 
glory  that  will  be  revealed,"  or  manifested,  at  the  last  day  is  here 
declared  to  be,  specifically,  "to  z<.s-ward,"  "in  regard  to  us,"  a 
"revelation"  of  glory,  in  which  neither  the  "creation"  at  lai-ge 
nor  any  assignable  part  of  creation  outside  of  ourselves  has  a 
share, — nothing  but  "us."  This  thought  runs  through  the  para- 
graph to  the  final  word  in  the  twenty-third  verse,  "  the  redemption 
of  our  body;"  and  this  explicit  word,  which  the  apostle  has  held 
in  suspense  until  he  has  reached  the  climax, — this  word  "body" 
gives  explicitly  the  lucid  and  sufficient,  and  only  possible,  explana- 
tion of  the  word  "creature."  If  this  explanation  is  correct,  "the 
creature"  is  simply  the  human  body;  and  by  this  phrase,  "the 
redemption  of  our  body,"  the  apostle  shows  in  what  respect  this 
consummate  glory  is  to  be  manifested  "  to  us-ward."  The  apostle 
has  already  said,  "Our  body,  indeed,  is  dead  on  account  of  sin; 
but  the  spirit  is  alive  on  account  of  justification."  (Rom.  viii,  11.) 
He  recognizes  the  fact  that  our  redemption,  while  potentially 
complete,  is,  as  yet,  only  partially  realized ;  but  he  expects  the 


-Milton,  In  his  description  of  Satan  just  awaked  from  the  stupor  of 
his  fall,  says,  In  words  that  almost  reproduce  our  text: 

"With  head  uplift  above  the  wave,  and  eyes 
That  sparkling  blazed."—"  Paradise  Lost,"  1, 193. 


254  EXPOSITION. 

time  when  the  body,  now  subject  to  the  bondage  of  corruption, 
will  be  delivered, from  this  bondage,  this  slavery  to  death,  into  the 
liberty  of  the  sons  of  God.  The  believer  has  already,  in  his  inner 
self,  his  conscious  spirit,  the  earnest  to  that  effect,  the  divine 
pledge  of  the  glory  tliat  will  be  his;  and  he  awaits  with  steadfast 
assurance  the  fullness  of  adoption,  tlie  redemption  of  his  body. 
Sucli,  in  brief,  seems  to  me  tlie  sole,  and  tlie  satisfactory,  and  tlie 
comforting  solution  of  this  puzzle  of  the  ages. 

But  as  other  views  have  so  long  been  accepted  (though  by 
none  with  entire  confidence),  it  is  necessary  to  show  in  detail  that 
no  other  view  than  the  one  here  presented  meets  the  conditions 
laid  down  in  the  text. 

"We  may  concede  in  advance  tliat  the  Greek  word  Krlan, "  crea- 
ture," whose  proper  explanation  is  in  question,  is  a  term  compre- 
hensive enough  to  designate  any  tiling  that  God  has  made.  The 
word,  standing  in  different  connections,  is  sometimes  translated 
"creature,"  sometimes  "creation."  In  this  passage  the  Author- 
ized inconsistently  gives  both  translations ;  the  Revised  incor- 
rectly only  the  latter.  The  Revisers'  word  "  creation  "  restricts 
the  sense  to  the  material  universe  apart  from  man.  But  the  woi-d 
"creature,"  like  the  Greek  word,  leaves  the  sense  open  to  all  in- 
terpretations, including  the  one  here  adopted,  the  human  body, 
For  brevity's  sake,  we  group  the  divergent  explanations  which  we 
reject  into  two  classes,  each,  however,  having  manifold  subdi- 
visions: First,  the  world  below  man  ;  sccondhj,  the  world  of  man. 

I.  Of  these  erroneous  views,  the  first  is  that  "the  creature" 
means  the  world  of  nature,  creation  at  large,  inanimate  and  ani- 
mate, exclusive  of  man.  This  view  was  held  by  Chrysostom,  and 
others,  among  the  ancients,  and  is  held,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by 
most  of  the  modern  commentators.  This  view  is  open,  at  the  first, 
to  a  fatal  objection.  It  assumes  what  needs  to  be  proved,  and  what 
can  not  be  proved,  for  it  is  a  false  premise,  that  nature,  the  mate- 
rial universe,  suffered  in  the  fall  of  man  ;  that  the  inanimate  world 
was  disturbed  and  defaced,  and  that  tlie  animal  world  was  subjected 
to  death  by  the  sin  of  man.  It  is  on  this  assumption,  that  some 
think  there  will  be  a  reconstruction,  in  which  the  material  world 
beneath  us  will  be  relieved  from  the  fancied  curse,  and  restored 
to  the  happy  condition  of  things  at  the  creation.  But  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever,  in  Scripture,  or  in  science,  that  the  inanimate 
W'orld,  or  the  irrational  animal  world,  ever  suffered  disaster  by  the 


ROMANS  Vlli,  19.  255 

sin  of  man.*  Nature  remains  what  it  was  in  the  beginning.  The 
natural  eatastroi)hes  around  us  are  not  the  recoil  of  sin.  Animal 
and  vegetable  death  was  in  the  world  before  man,  and  death  in  the 
natural  world  is,  so  far  forth,  as  mucli  a  part  of  God's  jilan,  as  life. 
As  the  material  inanimate  world,  and  the  animal  world  did  not 
share  our  sin,  and  were  not  precipitated  by  our  fall,  so  they  do  not 
share  our  redemption,  and  will  not  share  our  resurrection.  Nature 
has  no  "earnest  expectation,"  and  does  not  await  any  i-evelation. 
The  "  agony  "  of  inanimate  nature  for  deliverance  into  the  free- 
dom of  the  sons  of  God  is  an  idle  fancy.  When  the  beast  and  the 
plant  die,  they  have  fulfilled  the  purpose  of  their  being.  Only  man 
is  capable  of  sin,  or  of  penalty,  or  of  redemption,  or  of  the  expec- 
tation of  it.  The  material  universe  beneath  us  has  no  part  or  lot 
in  this  matter  of  a  final  restoration.  It  was  not  lost  by  reason  of 
sin,  and  is  not  recovered  by  the  atonement. 

Further,  it  is  wholly  unbiblical  that  the  earth  is  to  be  renewed 
as  the  future  abode  of  the  sainted  dead.  We  need  not  press  too 
literally  the  Scriptures  that  seem  to  teach  that  the  world  is  to  be 
destroyed,  not "  reconstructed  ;"  as  when  Jesus  said,  "  Heaven  and 
earth  will  pass  away,"  and  when  Peter  said,  "  The  heavens  will  be 
dissolved  ;  .  .  .  the  earth  also,  and  the  works  therein  will  be  burned 
up."  But  more  to  the  point  are  the  specific  declarations  that  our 
future  home  is  not  to  be  in  this  world,  however  transformed. 
Jesus  said,  "In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions.  I  go  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you  ;  and  I  will  come  again,  and  take  you  to 
myself,  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may  be  also"  (John  xiv,  2)  ;  and 
Peter  said,  "  There  is  an  inheritance  .  .  .  reserved  in  heaven  for  you, 
ready  to  be  revealed  at  the  last  day  "  (1  Pet.  i,  4). 

But  the  real,  the  insuperable  difficulty  in  this  view,  lies  in  the 
fact  that  even  if  this  downfall  and  recovery  of  the  natural  world 
were  true  in  itself,  it  is  not  taught  in  this  passage.     Nature  taken 


*The  "  curse  "  pronounced  on  the  ground  (Gen.  iii,  17)  "  for  the  sake  of 
man,"  if  it  meant  any  objective  change  in  the  habitation  of  man,  was 
clearly  not  a  change  In  the  constitution  of  things,  but  only  a  superficial 
change  in  the  single  matter  of  its  fertility.  The  soil  wjis  henceforth  to  pro- 
diicp  "  thorns  and  thistles,"  to  plague  man  for  his  sin:  the  ground  must  now 
l)e  cultivated  with  "  the  sweat  of  his  face."  But  the  change,  after  all,  was 
probably  not  in  the  physical  world,  but  only  subjective  in  man,  a  reflection 
from  his  different  attitude  to  the  objective  world  around  him.  Certainly 
science  knows  of  no  Invading  or  pervading  deterioration  in  nat  ure,  since 
the  Geological  ages. 


256  EXPOSITION. 

thus  universally  does  not  come  within  the  specific  limitations  ex- 
pressed here  in  the  precise  term,  "to  us-ward,"  or  "in  regard 
to  lis."  This  revelation  is  a  concern  of  ours,  and  not  of  the  nm- 
terial  universe  beneath  us,  or  of  any  class  of  Ijeings  other  than  man. 

II  The  second  erroneous  view  of  the  word  "  creature"  is  that 
it  means  the  human  race,  either  in  whole  or  in  i)art.  This  view 
was  held  by  Augustine,  among  the  fathers,  and  is  held  by  many 
commentators  now.  But  this  view  also,  in  either  branch  of  it,  is, 
like  the  other,  beset  with  insupei-able  difficulties. 

If  Paul  had  really  meant  mankind  as  a  whole  it  is  strange  that 
he  should  use  so  unlikely  a  designation  as  "creature."  The  term 
might  be  tolerated  if  spoken  of  a  single  man,  or  of  more,t;onceived 
of  individually,  but  it  would  still  be  a  term  of  disparagement. 
When  the  apostle  means  "man,  men,  mankind,"  lie  uses  the 
direct  word  "  man,"  as  he  does  twenty-seven  times  in  this  Epistle  ; 
or  if  he  wishes  a  general  collective  name,  especially  for  unbeliev- 
ers, he  uses  the  term  KSa-fMos,  "  the  world  ;"  and  he  uses  the  word 
nine  times  in  this  Epistle;  for  example,  "The  rejection  of  the 
Jews  is  the  reconciliation  of  the  world."     (Rom.  xi,  15.) 

But  aside  from  the  a  prion  improbability  of  the  apostle's  using 
the  far-fetched  word  "creature"  to  designate  mnnkind  at  hirgr, 
this  interpretation  of  the  word  makes  the  apostle  inconsistent 
with  himself.  His  description  througliout  the  i)assage  (verses 
19-23),  expressly  discriminates  tlie  "children  of  God"  from  "the 
creature,"  and  establishes  each  of  them  in  a  class  by  itself.  So 
that,  if  "  creature  "  means  man  at  large,  we  have  then  two  incom- 
patible categories:  " The  creature  "  (that  is  according  to  the  hypoth- 
esis, all  the  race)  and  "The  sons  of  God."  Notice  the  apostle's 
distinctive  expressions. 

1.  There  is  to  be  a  revelation  of  the  sons  of  God.     (Verse  19.) 

2.  "  The  creature  "  also  will  be  delivered  into  the  freedom  of 
the  sons  of  God.     (Verse  21.) 

Clearly  we  can  not  interpret  the  word  "  creature  "  as  meaning 
all  the  race. 

Nor  can  we  interpret  "the  creature"  as  meaning  only  a  part 
of  the  race,  the  unregenerate,  who  are  not  included  among  "  the 
sons  of  God."  Why  should  they  be  described  as  "  groaning  and 
travailing  in  pain  together"  [or,  with  us]?  This  description  may 
possibly  be  true,  to  a  limited  extent,  in  the  case  of  a  vei*y  few 
enlightened  individuals  among  the  heathen,  as  Confucius  and 
Socrates;  but  it  is  not  true,  even  in  a  remote  sense,  in  regard  to 


R03fANS  VIII,  19.  257 

the  great  mass  of  the  unregenerato world.  Paul  has  said  of  the 
heathen,  "They  did  not  choose  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge." 
(Koni.  i,  28  )  Certainly  the  thought  here  is  not  with  regard  to  the 
Avorld  outside  of  Christ.  We  may  hope  for  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen  ;  but  not  on  the  ground  of  this  passage.  The  definite  lim- 
itations fixed  by  the  words  "  to  ^fs-ward  "  restricts  the  title  and 
promise  of  eternal  redemption  to  those  who  are  in  Christ. 

We  repeat  that  the  word  "creature,"  and  the  tei'ms  that 
characterize  it  in  this  verse,  ai*e  all  figurative.  They  describe  the 
creature  as  endowed  with  life  and  consciousness,  and  yearning  for 
something  that  is  afar.  Such  personifications  are  found  in  all  lit- 
erature ;  some  with  more,  some  with  less,  appropriateness.  No 
doubt  with  regard  to  the  rejected  interpretation,  "nature,"  such 
a  personification,  though  overstrained,  is  possible.  But  with  regard 
to  the  human  body,  which  is  a  part  (if  not  a  conscious  part)  of 
ourselves,  the  figurative  ascription  to  it,  of  unrest  under  its  present 
disabilities,  and  Of  eager  longing  for  deliverance  with  ourselves 
[our  spirits]  is  a  more  appropriate  figure.  The  body  is  so  closely 
associated  with  the  spirit  of  man,  in  fact,  and  in  our  thought, 
that  we  constantly  ascribe  to  the  body  personality  and  conscious- 
ness, and  feelings,  and  volitions,  and  acts,  as  if  the  body  were  ac- 
tually capable  of  those  things  which  properly  belong  only  to  our 
inward  selves.  This  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  figurative 
language  of  all  literature  and  of  the  Scriptures  elsewhere,  in 
regard  to  the  body,  or  its  members.  Thus  David  says:  "My  flesh 
shall  rest  in  hope  "  (Psa.  xvi,  8)  ;  "  My  heart  and  my  flesh  cry  out 
for  God"  (Psa.  Ixxxiv,  2).  The  term  by  which  Paul  calls  the  hu- 
man body  "  the  creature,"  is  exceedingly  appropriate.  It  denotes 
humble,  subordinate  i-elation  to  the  spirit.  Of  course,  the  soul  as 
well  as  the  body  was  ''created"  by  God;  but  it  is  of  the  plastic, 
physical  frame,  rather  than  of  the  soul,  that  we  ususually  predicate 
"creation,"  by  the  "  Creator,"  who  "formed  us  of  clay,  and  made 
us  men."  Indeed,  this  is  the  figure  that  most  readily  occurs  to 
one  who  thinks  of  man's  dependency.  "  Shall  the  chuj  say  to  him 
that  fashions  it.  What  makest  thou?"  (Isa.  xlv,  9.)  Paul  uses 
the  word  "creature"  here,  in  a  slightly  disparaging  sense.  He 
expresses  the  same  concept  by  a  similar  term,  when  he  says 
to  the  Thessalonians:  "That  each  one  of  you  may  know^  to  get 
[get  control  of?)  his  own  vessel  (his  person)  in  sanctification  and 
honor."  (1  Thess.  iv,  4.)  He  calls  the  body  "  the  vessel,"  depi*e- 
ciating  it  as  the  vassal  of  the  soul.  In  like  manner,  too,  the 
17 


258  EXPOSITIOX. 

inlrospoctive  Hamlet  uses  a  self-disi>aragiiig  term  about  liimself — 
liis  body— "  Tliiiie,  lady,  tliine,  whilst  tliis  machine  is  to  liim." 
(Ilainlet,  ii,  2,  124.) 

The  verb  awaits,  or  "  exi)ects,"  describes  the  longing  antici- 
pation with  which  "the  creature"  thus  personified  looks  forward 
to  the  time  of  deliverance.  It  expresses  both  the  instinctive 
yearning  for  that  day,  and  the  faith  that  greets  the  end  from  afar. 
The  longed-for  deliverance  will  come  at  the  "  revelation  of  the 
sons  of  God,"  that  is,  of  the  redeemed  spirits  of  believers,  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  last  day:  "When  Christ,  who  is  our  life,  shall 
be  manifested,  then  will  ye  also  be  manifested  with  him  in  glory." 
(Col.  iii,  4.)  The  best  commentary  on  tliese  words  is  the  saying  of 
Christ,  "They  that  are  counted  worthy  to  attain  to  tliat  world, 
and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  .  .  .  are  sons  of  God,  being 
sons  of  the  resurrection."  (Luke  xx,  36.)  The  resurrection  will 
be  the  consummate  proof  of  the  sonship  of  believers.  Here,  in 
the  days  of  their  flesh,  "  the  world  maybe  knows  them  not;"  but 
in  that  day  they  will  be  publicly  recognized  and  owned  by  God, 
and  "  manifested  "  to  the  world  as  his  sons. 

Verse  20.  For  the  creature  was  subjected  to  the  frailty, 
not  of  its  own  will ;  nay,  but  on  account  of  him  that  sub- 
jected it ;  in  hope  ; 

The  w^ord  frailty,  usually  translated  "vanity,"  means,  as 
shown  by  the  connection,  "a  waning  away,  blight,  death;"  and 
the  thought  is  resumed  in  the  next  verse  by  the  equivalent  word 
'"corruption,"  that  is,  mortality.  To  this  condition  the  human 
body  was  subjected,  not  voluntarily  by  any  act  or  will  of  its  own, 
but  as  the  consequence  from  Adam's  sin,  on  account  of  whom 
it  was  condemned  to  death:  "Through  his  sin,  death  entered." 
This  fatal  result  was  in  pursuance  of  the  divine  law;  and  so  we 
may  interpret  the  verb  was  subjected  in  this  light.  It  was  God 
indeed  who  administratively  subjected  man  to  death,  but  the  one 
"on  account  of  whom"  the  creature  was  subjected  to  vanity,  to 
mortality,  was  Adam,  not  God. 

The  last  words,  in  hope  (or,  more  literally,  "  upon  a  basis  of 
hope"),  are  to  be  construed  witli  the  first  verb,  "it  was  sub- 
jected," which  expresses  God's  act,  and  not  Adam's.  Yet  the 
words  "in  hope  "  do  not  denote  the  divine  intent  in  bringing  this 
penal  result  upon  man  ;  but  they  express  the  one  gleam  of  com- 
fort which  was  still  left  to  man.     "When  Pandora's  casket  lost  all 


ROMANS  VIII.    21,22.  259 

its  othei'  ti-easures,  hope  still  remained  behind.     The  verse  should 
end  with  a  semicolon. 

Verse  21.  Because  also  the  creature  itself  will  be  en- 
freed  from  the  slavery  to  corruption,  [and  brought]  into 
the  freedom  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God. 

The  first  word  in  this  verse  (^rt)  the  Revised  translates  that, 
as  if  to  expi-ess  the  substance  of  the  "  hope  ;"  but  the  Authorized 
more  correctly  translates  it  by  the  word  because,  to  express  the 
ground  of  the  hope,  as  found  in  the  great  fact  of  the  coming 
resurrection.  The  significance  of  the  word  also  must  not  be 
overlooked.  It  implies  that  "  the  creature"  is  not  the  only  party, 
or  the  leading  party,  concerned  in  the  deliverance.  The  other 
party  is  the  spirit  of  the  believer,  which  has  already  had  this  great 
experience.  "  Though  the  s])irit  is,  already,  alive,  on  account  of  jus- 
tification, the  body  is  yet  dead  on  account  of  sin"  (Rom.  viii,  10)  ; 
but  the  body  also,  though  now  dead,  is  destined  to  a  glorious 
awakening;  "  it  also,  as  well  as  the  spirit,  will  be  brought  into  the 
freedom  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God." 

Corruption  is  a  synonym  for  frailty  in  the  verse  preceding, 
and  means  "mortality,"  "death."  "Corruption"  is  a  term  that 
is  not  predicable  of  the  creation  at  large  in  either  sense  of  the 
word,  moral  or  physical,  but  is  entirely  appropriate  to  the  human 
body.  Nor  can  creation  be  brought  into  the  glorious  freedom  of 
the  children  of  God :  only  what  is  human,  the  soul  and  the  body  of 
man,  is  capable  of  such  deliverance. 

Verse  22.  For  we  know  that  all  the  creature  groans 
with  us,  and  travails  with  us,  until  now. 

The  clause  with  the  conjunction  for  is  confirmatory  of  the 
truth  of  the  preceding  verse :  "The  body  will  be  delivered."  The 
gospel  promises  it,  and  all  human  presentiment  and  conviction 
attest  it.  The  words  we  know  mean  that  we  (men  generally) 
accept  as  a  recognized  truth  the  mutual  sympathy  between  the 
body  and  the  spirit. 

The  Authorized  and  the  Revised  translation,  "groaneth  and 
travaileth  together,"  misses  the  point  of  the  verse,  and  misses  the 
striking  correspondence  of  thought  and  expression  with  the  next 
verse.  Paul  does  not  mean  that  nature,  or  "  creation,"  groans  to- 
gether and  travails  together,  as  if  in  mass,  or  in  one  conglomerate 
whole  ;  but  that  "  the  creature"  [the  body]  groans  with  us,  and 


2G0  EXPOSITION 

agonizes  xinth  us;  that  is,  with  the  conscious  spirit  of  beliovers. 
This  ellipsis  of  the  object  of  the  prepositions  in  Greek,  with  [ux], 
is  very  common.  Here  the  ellii)sis  of  the  object  of  the  preposition 
"with"  [aw]  is  exactly  parallel  with  the  same  ellipsis  in  the  sev- 
enteenth verse:  "If  we  suffer  with  [him],  we  shall  be  glorified 
with  [him]."  In  the  first  clause  of  the  seventeenth  verse  the 
Authorized  is  right ;  in  the  second  clause,  it  is  wrong,  and  the 
Revised  is  right.  In  the  verse  before  us,  tlie  twenty-second,  both 
translations  are  wrong  in  both  clauses. 

The  word  travails  with  us  suggests,  as  in  a  figure,  the  birth 
pangs  which  will  bring  body  and  spirit  into  the  new  resurrection 
life.  The  words  all  the  creature  mean  that  our  entire  Ijeing  is 
absorbed  in  the  "agonizing"  for  deliverance.  This  verse  declares 
that  the  body  groans  with  the  spirit,  and  the  next  verse  declares 
that  the  spirit  answers  back  with  responsive  woe. 

Verse  23.  But  not  only  is  this  [the  fact],  nay,  but  also 
ourselves,  who  have  the  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit,  we  also 
ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  awaiting  adoption,  the 
redemption  of  our  body. 

The  verse  describes  the  close  sympathy  between  the  believer's 
spirit  and  his  body,  and  their  joint  yearning  for  salvation.  The 
gospel  has  made  full  provision  for  the  final  salvation  of  body  and 
soul ;  but  as  yet  each  lacks  something  of  full  adoption.  The 
believer  has  yet  only  the  firstfruits,  or  earnest,  of  the  Spirit,  in 
his  justification  from  guilt,  and  in  the  regeneration  of  his  nature: 
while  "  the  body  is  yet  dead  on  account  of  sin."  Neither  the  spirit 
on  the  one  hand,  nor  the  body  on  the  other,  can  realize  the  fullness 
of  adoption  without  the  other.  The  word  "firstfruits,"  by  its 
very  meaning,  implies  that  the  work  of  the  Spirit  is  yet  incom- 
plete;  but  it  involves  also  the  promise  of  a  fullness  of  harvest. 
In  this  state  of  suspense  both  spirit  and  body  wait  in  unsatisfied 
expectation  and  longing.  "  The  body  groans  with  us  (with  our  re- 
deemed spirits),  and  suffers  with  us  the  pangs  of  the  birth  agony 
into  life;"  and  we  also.  OTirselves  with  answering  solicitude, 
groan  within  ourselves,  awaiting  this  fullness  of  adoption, 
the  redemption  of  our  body.  The  redeemed  spirit  is  the  inter- 
l)retcr  of  the  voiceless  body,  its  mouth  to  utter  the  inarticulate 
cry  for  life.  Such  is  the  Christian  instinct;  we  yearn  for  an  all- 
round  salvation.  "  He  who  wrought  us  out  for  this  very  thing  is 
God,  who  also  gave  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit."     (2  Cor.  v,  5.) 


ROMANS  VIII.    U,  ^5.  261 

This  all-round  salvation  will  be  accomplished  only  in  the  resurrec- 
tion, when  the  body  a]so  will  be  delivered  from  corruption.  Paul's 
language  elsewhere  is  an  exact  commentary  on  this  verse,  both 
verbally  and  in  sense :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  earnest  (or  guaran- 
tee) of  our  inheritance,  unto  the  redemjition  of  Christ's  purchase." 
(Eph.  i,  14.)  This  yearning  of  the  sp'rit  in  behalf  of  the  body, 
finds  vivid  expression  in  Paul's  words  to  the  Corinthians:  "In 
this  body  we  groan,  yearning  to  put  on  over  it,  our  dwelling-place 
which  is  from  heaven.  .  .  .  We  who  are  in  the  tabernacle  [of  the 
body]  groan,  being  weighed  down  ;  because  we  will — not  to  put  off 
[our  earthly  body],  by  dying,  but  without  dying,  to  put  on  over  it 
[our  body  from  heaven],  that  the  mortal  [body]  may  be  swallowed 
up  by  the  [immortal]  life."     (2  Cor.  v,  1-8.) 

The  pronouns  "  we,"  "  us"  in  the  last  two  verses  of  the  text, 
and  in  the  passages  quoted  in  the  last  note,  are  spoken,  not  from 
the  standpoint  of  our  entire  being,  sp«V?"<  and  body,  but  only  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  spirit.  This  is  shown  by  the  discrimination 
in  the  twenty-third  verse.  "  IFe  ourselves  [the  redeemed  spirits], 
groan,  awaiting  the  redemption  of  our  body."  The  first  clause  Not 
only  this,  means,  "Not  only  does  the  body  do  this" — namely, 
"groan  with  us"  (verse  22) — "but  we  ourselves  groan  with  it." 
Similar  ellipses  are  easily  supplied  from  the  connection ;  Rom. 
V,  3,  11;  ix,  10. 

Verses  24,  25.  For  in  the  hope  [only  of  this  resur- 
rection] we  were  saved.  But  a  hope,  being  seen,  is  not 
hope :  for  what  one  sees,  why  does  he  hope  for  it  ? 
But  if  w^hat  we  do  not  see,  w^e  hope  for  it;  with  patience 
we  await  it. 

In  view  of  the  translation  here  given,  "  For  in  the  hope  we 
were  saved,''  it  is  alinost  needless  to  call  attention  to  the  mistake 
of  the  Authorized  and  of  the  Revised,  in  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage. Besides  their  error  in  Greek,  they  have  introduced  a  grave 
error  in  theology.  Men  are  not  saved  "fey  hope,"  in  any  sense  of 
the  word,  but  only  by  faith. 

The  apostle  here  says,  we  were  saved.  The  word  can  be 
taken  either  relatively  only,  or  in  its  absolute  sense;  either,  _^rs<, 
of  the  regeneration  of  our  si)irits,  and  our  adoption  liere  into  God's 
family  ;  or,  secondly,  of  the  completion  of  God's  work  in  us,  body 
and  soul,  hereafter.  Tlie  former  si'lvation  is  but  provisional,  the 
earnest  of  our  complete  salvation,  the  guarantee  of  "  the  salvation 


2G2  EXPOSITION. 

that  is  ready  to  be  revealed  at  the  last  time."  (1  Pet.  i,5.)  It  is  in 
the  former  sense,  of  provisional  salvation,  only,  that  the  word  is 
used  in  this  verse:  and  the  verse  declares  tiiat  it  was  in  the  hope 
of  this  other  larger  and  eternal  adoption,  in  the  resiirrectiun,  jit  the 
last  day,  of  body  and  soul  together,  that  we  were  provisionally 
saved  here  and  now.  The  gift  of  God's  Spirit  to  us  is  his  pledge 
that  the  promise  will  be  fulfilled.  "Salvation"  here  is  the  title- 
deed  to  our  complete  inheritance  hereafter;  but  does  not  put  us 
in  immediate  possession  of  our  estate. 

Paul's  thought  in  this  discussion  about  "hope"  is  very  clear. 
It  belongs  to  tiie  concept  of  "  hope,"  and  constitutes  a  good  lexical 
definition  of  the  word.  It  declares  that  hope  looks  to  the  future, 
and  not  to  the  present.  And  so,  the  apostle  with  nice  discrimina- 
tion as  to  the  meaning  of  tlie  word,  says  that  a  hope  (lliat  is,  an 
object  of  hope),  which  is  seen  (that  is,  which  is  now  here,  in  our 
present  enjoyment),  is,  according  to  the  definition  of  the  word, 
not  "  a  hope  "  at  all ;  that  is,  if  it  be  called  by  its  true  name,  it  is 
a  present  fruition.  For  we  do  not  "hope"  for  a  thing  which  we 
see  (that  is,  for  a  thing  now  in  our  possession),  but  we  enjoy  it. 
The  full  salvation  wliich  we  hope  for,  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
yet  future,  and  we  shall  attain  it  only  on  the  great  day  of  salva- 
tion. Meanwhile,  led  by  the  present  possession  of  the  Spirit,  and 
hoping  further  for  what  else  we  do  not  "  see,"  we  with  patience 
await  it  from  afar.  "For  we  walk  by  faith,  and  not  by  sight." 
(2  Cor.  V,  7.) 

Verse  26.  But  in  like  manner  also,  the  Spirit  helps  our 
weakness ;  for  w^e  know^  not  what  we  should  pray,  as  we 
ought ;  nay,  but  the  Spirit  itself  intercedes  for  us,  with 
groanings  unspeakable. 

Tlie  discussion  which  was  interrupted  by  the  long  parenthesis 
about  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (verses  18-25),  is  now  resumed  ; 
and  the  apostle  describes  tlie  intercession  of  the  Spirit  in  our  be- 
half. This  verse,  by  the  words  in  like  manner,  connects  back  to 
the  sixteenth  verse.  In  that  verse,  the  apostle  said,  that  "  the 
Spirit  testifies  with  us  (the  Gentiles)  that  we  are  children  of 
God."  In  this  verse,  he  declares  that  in  like  manner  also,  the 
Spirit  assists  our  weakness  (or,  jiossibly  we  may  explain  it, 
assists  us  in  our  weakness).  The  weakness  here  spoken  of,  is  not 
simply  feebhiuess  of  faith,  or  instability  in  our  life,  but,  as  further 
described,  the  inability  to  frame  our  longings  into  articulate  and 


ROMANS  VIII.    27,  28.  263 

definite  prayer.  AVe  would  fain  come  into  his  audience  chamber; 
but  we  know  not  how  to  call  on  him,  and  to  get  tiie  answer  that  we 
need.  We  are  burdened  in  spirit,  and  oppressed  ;  we  groan  for 
deliverance,  but  we  can  not  embody  our  yearnings  and  sighings  in 
adequate  utterance.  But  the  Spirit,  which  has  itself  inspired 
these  yearnings,  knows  what  is  the  unuttered  desire  of  our  heart, 
and  intercedes  with  God  in  our  behalf.  Yet  not  even  the  Spirit 
can  embody  its  intercessions  in  audible,  articulate  words ;  its 
prayers  in  our  behalf  are  unuttered,  unutterable  gToanings. 
But  these  groanings,  which  are  the  vehicle  of  our  groanings,  pierce 
the  Divine  ear,  and  are  approved  and  answered.  How  often,  in 
the  silences,  when  no  human  ear  can  hear,  when  our  own  voice  is 
still,  our  spirits  are  rapt  and  tlirilled,  in  the  embrace  and  uplift  of 
the  Divine  Spirit,  which  yearns  over  us  and  in  us! 

Verse  27.  But  he  that  searches  the  heart,  knows  what 
is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  it  is  according  to  God 
that  it  intercedes  for  the  saints. 

The  language  here  defines  God's  work  and  purpose.  He  de- 
scribes himself  elsewhere  as  "  the  One  that  searches  the  hearts 
and  the  reins  "  (Rev.  ii,  23) ;  and  thus  he  knows  what  is  in  man, 
and  thus,  too,  he  knows  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  which 
has  its  abode  in  our  hearts.  The  Spirit  is  given  us  from  the 
Father,  it  testifies  to  us  of  the  Father,  and  it  intercedes  for  us 
with  the  Father ;  and  its  intercessory  office  is  in  accordance  with 
the  purpose  and  the  plan  of  the  Father. 

But  perhaps  we  may  express  the  apostle's  thought  more  ex- 
actly yet.  In  the  twenty-sixth  and  twenty-seventh  vei'ses,  the 
preposition  is  vtt^p,  which  we  have  seen  often  has  the  meaning  "in 
our  place."  (Rom.  v,  7.)  If  thus  taken,  the  words  should  be 
translated  definitely,  and  precisely,  "  The  Spirit  itself  intercedes 
for  us ;"  that  is,  "  in  our  stead."  It  is  the  Spirit  that  utters  our 
cry  to  God. 

Verse  28.  But  we  know  that  all  things  work  together 
for  good,  with  them  that  love  God,  with  them  that  are 
called  according  to  his  plan  of  old. 

The  last  word  in  the  verse  is  usually  translated  "  purpose,"  but 
incorrectly.  Paul  here,  and  everywhere,  carefully  discriminates 
between  God's  purpose  for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  his  plan  for 
carrying  out  his  purpose.     Logically,  purpose,  which  is  subjective, 


264  EXPOSITION. 

in  the  mind,  antedates  plan,  wliich  is  objective,  in  the  execution. 
In  this  verse,  Paul  does  not  name  the  purpose  in  God's  mind,  but 
he  names  and  discusses  the  plan,  tlie  project,  irpbdtai^,  "  the  plan  of 
old,"  the  working  scheme,  or  measure,  which  God  instituted  for 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose.* 

God's  gracious  purpose,  and  the  wonderful  plan  which  he 
devised  to  carry  out  his  purpose,  dated,  both  of  them,  from 
eternity.  The  "call"  to  men  into  the  privileges  of  this  saving 
scheme  took  place  in  time,  and  from  the  first,  took  in  all  men 
indiscriminately,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews;  or,  rather,  took  in  the 
whole  world,  being  "  Gentile  "  only,  before  there  were  any  "Jews." 
In  comparison  with  the  Gentiles,  who  liad  the  primal  claim  to 
those  privileges,  the  Jews,  when  they  came  upon  the  scene  as  such 
[the  call  of  Abraham  was  B.  C.  2217],  were  but  parvenus,  upstarts 
of  yesterday.  The  uncircumcised  Gentiles,  and  not  the  Jews, 
were,  in  point  of  historic  fact,  God's  real  "  anointed  people,"  and 
were  the  ancient  Church,  though  not  having  an  organic  constitu- 
tion. This  is  Paul's  constant  and  consistent  teaching  ;  he  develops 
the  thought  at  large  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  esi)ecially  in 
the  third  chapter;  and  it  is  his  present  contention  in  regard  to 
the  comparative  claims  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  He  thinks  and  writes 
here,  from  the  standpoint  of  his  apostolate  to  the  Gentiles.  He 
carries  an  abiding  and  dominating  conviction  of  their  primal,  and 
continued,  and  just  relation  to  God's  plan;  and  of  his  own  divine 
call  to  preach  this  plan  to  the  Gentiles  in  all  its  gospel  compass. 
"To  me  was  this  grace  given,  to  preach  among  the  Gentiles  the 
riches  of  Christ  ...  in  order  that  may  be  made  known  [to  the 
Gentiles  (Rom.  xvi,  26)]  God's  wisdom,  as  respects  the  eternal  plan 
which  he  i)lanned  in  Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord."     (Eph.  iii,  8.) 

It  is  of  the  Gentiles,  then,  expressly,  not  of  the  Jews,  or  of 
men  at  large,  including  the  Jews,  but  of  the  Gentiles,  in  special, 
that  the  saying  of  this  verse,  and  of  the  verses  following,  is  uttered. 
Of  the  Gentiles,  standing  in  the  relation  to  God  of  being  called 
according  to  his  plan,  the  apostle  says,  "All  things  co-operate 
witli  them  for  good  ;"  not  even  the  hostility  of  the  Jews,  who 
would  rule  them  out  of  the  Church,  can  work  them  any  harm. 


•  The  verbs  to  express  "  purpose,"  are  di\eiv  and  ^oOXeffOai.  "  God  wills 
(dfXei)  all  men  to  be  saved"  (1  Tim.  11,  4);  "not  wishinr/  (/3ouX6^ws)  any 
nifui  toporish"  (2  Pet.  Ill,  9).  The  corresponding  substantives  iin-  O^Xrjfia, 
(iovXri,  /3ouX77/xtt.  These  are  not  the  words  used  In  this  verse;  and  this  is  not 
the  concept  of  the  passage. 


ROMANS  VIII,  28.  265 

"Though  Abraham  is  ignorant  of  us,  and  Israel  acknowledged  us 
not,  doubtless  thou,  Jehovah,  art  our  Father;  thy  name  was  our 
redeemer  from  of  old."     (Isa.  Ixiii,  16.) 

The  word  kXtjtoI,  correctly  translated  the  called,  Paul  extends 
to  all  the  Gentile  world.  But  Calvin  interprets  it  as  embracing 
certain  "elect,"  or  "select,"  men  only,  chosen  from  out  of  the 
mass  of  mankind  at  large,  and  therefore  fewer  in  number  than  the 
whole  mass.  If  Calvin's  interpretation  be  correct,  then  the  chosen 
men  were  chosen,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  by  tlie  caprice  of  God,  "  out 
of  his  mere  grace,  without  anything  in  the  creature  moving  him 
thereto,"  chosen  to  be  God's  ''peculiar"  people,  of  course  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  Calvin  himself  is  most  pro- 
nounced on  this  point  of  reprobation,  which  some  of  his  later  fol- 
lowers, rejecting  for  themselves,  deny  to  be  his  teaching.  His 
words  are :  "  Many,  as  if  wishing  to  remove  odium  from  God,  while 
they  admit  election,  yet  deny  reprobation.  But  in  this  they  speak 
ignorantly  and  childislily :  since  election  itself  could  not  stand,  ex- 
cept as  the  opposite  of  reprobation.  God  is  said  to  set  apart  those 
whom  he  adopts  for  salvavation.  Those,  therefore,  whom  he  passes 
by  he  reprobates  ;  and  that  for  no  other  cause  than  that  he  chooses 
to  exclude  them.  AVhence  it  happens  that  so  many  nations,  to- 
gether with  their  infant  children,  were  sentenced  to  eternal  death 
by  the  fall  of  Adam,  without  any  remedy."  * 

To  this  choice  bit  of  Calvinistic  execration  the  Westminster 
Confession  adds:  "All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto 
life,  and  those  only  [therefore,  by  implication,  relatively  a  small 
number]  he  is  pleased  effectually  to  call  to  grace  and  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ." 

But  these  limitations,  or  any  limitations  of  the  divine  call,  are 
not  Scriptural.  Under  the  old  dispensation  the  Jews,  all  the 
Jews,  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  every  individual  of  the  nation, 
were  elected  and  called  as  God's  people.  They  were  called,  with- 
out their  own  personal  consent,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  theocratic 
privileges,— which,  however,  they  could  individually  accept  or  re- 
fuse, at  their  own  volition.  But  the  Jews  were  not  called,  as  they 
fondly  thought,  to  a  decreed  salvation ;  for  many  Jews  were  lost. 
Similarly,  as  Paul  shows  in  the  gospel  plan,  which  is  only  the  old 
ideal  plan  continued  in  force,  and  proclaimed  now  to  all  the  world, 
and  not  to  the  Jews  only,  the  Gentiles,  all  the  Gentiles  en  masse, 


Institutes,  Bk.  Ill,  ch.  xxiil,  $  7. 


266  EXPOSITION. 

and  every  individual  of  them,  are,  in  the  same  sense,  elect  and 
called  to  the  same  equitable  privileges  and  opportunities  as  those 
of  the  Jews;  and,  like  tlie  Jews,  all  Gentiles  individually  can  ac- 
cept or  refuse  at  their  own  volition.  All  are  redeemed,  all  are 
called,  a  thing  not  depending  on  themselves  severally,  but  belong- 
ing to  the  race  at  large  ;  but  none,  at  least  none  of  adult  years  and 
self-determination,  are  finally  saved  without  their  own  personal 
volition  and  co-operation. 

Verse  29.  Because  whom  he  of  old  had  in  thought,  he 
also  of  old  included  in  his  plan,  being  conform  with  the 
image  of  his  Son ;  that  he  may  be  firstborn  among  many- 
brethren. 

This  passage  is,  perhaps,  the  most  controverted  of  all  in  Paul's 
Epistles.  I  give,  for  comparison,  the  text  of  the  Authorized  (which 
is  also  nearly  that  of  the  Revised) ,  though,  to  say  the  least,  it  is  open 
to  gravest  objections  on  the  score  of  its  Greek  and  of  its  theology: 

"  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  firstborn 
among  many  brethren." 

Each  several  term  in  the  verse  needs  discussion. 

1.  In  attempting  an  examination  of  the  controverted  points 
we  must  steadfastly  keep  foremost  in  our  minds  that  Paul  had 
foremost  in  his  own  mind  the  one  purpose,  to  vindicate  the  rights 
of  the  Gentiles  to  an  equal  place  in  the  Church,  against  the  exclu- 
siveness  of  the  Jews.  As  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  he  held  that 
the  Gentiles  vrere  always  included  in  God's  plan  ;  and  that,  indeed, 
they  were  so  long  before  the  Jews  themselves  were  chosen  as  the 
theocratic  people.  This  is  his  one  thought  here.  He  is  not  think- 
ing and  speaking  of  men  in  general — that  is,  of  Gentiles  and  Jews 
indiscriminately — but  of  the  Gentiles  only,  in  explicit  discrimina- 
tion from  the  Jews  ;  and  he  is  speaking  of  all  the  Gentiles  en  masse, 
and  not  of  some  of  them  only.  But  the  usual  interpretation  of 
this  verse  is  very  different.  The  AVestminster  Confession  expresses 
this  different  interpretation,  in  part,  thus:  "By  the  decree  of 
God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are 
predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death."  (HI,  iii.)  But,  we  repeat,  this  verse  does  not 
contemplate  "some  men"  only  (both  Jew  and  Gentile)  as  selected  in 
particular  out  of  the  race  at  large,  but  contemplates  the  Gentiles 
only,  and  nil  of  them,  in  mass. 

But  in  the  first  clause,  whom  he  of  old  had  in  thought,  or, 


ROMANS  VIII,  29.  267 

as  the  Authorized  gives  it,  "  whom  he  did  foreknow,"  we  are  met 
with  tlie  difficulty  that  the  antecedent  to  the  relative  pronoun 
"whom"  is  not  expressed,  and  tlie  phrase  seems,  at  first  sight, 
vague,  and  capable  of  being  construed  indefinitely  in  the  sense  of 
Calvinistic  particularism,  "'Those  whom  [such  persons  as]  he  fore- 
knew." But  the  antecedent  that  Paul  had  in  his  thought  is  very 
definite  and  precise— not  "Such  persons  as,"  hut  "The  Gentiles, 
them  only,  and  all  of  them;"  "The  Gentiles  whom  he  had  in 
thought."  True,  m  this  verse  he  has  not  expressly  named  the 
Gentiles,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  the  entire  discussion  of  the  Epistle 
is  about  them ;  it  is  their  case  only  that  he  has  before  him  ;  his 
mind  is  surcharged  with  his  theme  ;  and,  quite  unconscious  of  any 
grammatical  ambiguity  in  his  sentence  from  the  lack  of  the  defi- 
nite antecedent  word,  "  tlie  Gentik's,"  he  uses  the  word  "  whom  " 
as  referring,  of  course,  to  them,  the  one  subject  of  his  thought. 
But  at  any  rate,  in  the  scope  of  his  thought,  logically,  there  is  no 
room  for  any  doubt.  Elsewhere  in  this  Epistle  he  uses  exactly 
the  same  language  with  regard  to  the  Jew^s  exclusive  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. Of  them  expressly,  by  name,  he  declares  that  "  God  did  not 
cast  ofif  his  people,  the  Jews,  which  he  foreknew  "—that  is,  "  whom 
he  had  in  his  tliought"- as  a  definite  class,  apart  from  others  ;  not 
some  of  the  Jews,  but  all  of  them  in  mass  (Rom.  xi,  2).  Just  so, 
here  in  the  verse  before  us,  he  speaks  with  equal  definiteness  of 
the  Gentiles,  all  of  them,  in  mass.  This  reference  to  the  Gentiles 
exclusive  of  others,  but  inclusive  of  all  of  themselves,  which  was 
so  clear  in  Paul's  own  mind,  must  have  been  perfectly  clear  to  the 
Church  at  Rome,  and  to  all  other  readers  of  that  day,  inclusive  of 
the  Synagogue  itself,  who  all  knew  perfectly  well  the  great  issue 
and  the  religious  interests  involved.  The  Calvinistic  interpreta- 
tion would  not  have  had  any  pertinent  meaning  to  them,  or,  indeed, 
any  meaning  at  all.  And  this  reference  to  the  Gentiles  stands 
equally  clear  to  modern  readers  who  are  able  to  trace  the  logic  of 
the  Epistle.  The  only  definitive  antecedent  which  can  possibly  fit 
into  the  apostle's  line  of  thought  is  "  the  Gentiles,"—"  the  Gentiles 
whom  he  had  in  thought."  That  is  to  say,  according  to  Paul's  pre- 
sentation of  the  case,  God  did  not  foreknow  and  call  the  Jews  only, 
as  the  Synagogue  held,  nor  did  he  foreknow  and  call  a  few  select 
men,  some  Jew  and  some  Gentile,  out  of  the  world  at  large,  as 
Augustine  and  Calvin  interpreted  this  universal  gospel  of  Christ; 
but,  as  Paul's  present  argument  demands,  he  foreknew  and  called 
the  Gentiles,  not  some  of  them,  but  all  of  tliem,  in  mass.  Tliis  is  the 
single  point  that  Paul  is  here  intent  on  making ;  and  he  makes  it. 


268  EXPOSITION. 

2.  This  suppply  of  the  definitive  word,  "  the  Gentiles,"  as  the 
antecedent,  leads  to  the  j)roper  explanation  of  the  word  translated 
foreknew,  or,  more  precisely,  '•  whom  lie  of  old  had  {or  took)  in  his 
thuiujhi."  ■'  If  the  discrimination  made  in  the  foot-note  below 
holds  true,  Paul's  word  here  can  not  mean,  as  some  Englisii  readers 
have  understood  it,  that  God  uas  airare,  in  advance,  of  the  histor- 
ical place  and  career  of  the  creatures  whom  he  himself  should  cre- 
ate ;  that  is,  that  he  foresaw  that  they  would  exist,  and  when,  and 
where,  and  under  what  circumstances.  Of  course  all  this  kind  of 
knowledge  belongs  to  our  primary  concept  of  God  ;  and  to  affirm 
such  intuition,  or  awareness  of  his  own  works  yields  no  help  in 
understanding  this  passage,  and  lies  outside  of  the  present  line  of 
thought.!  But  Paul's  words  have  a  much  larger  and  nobler  mean- 
's There  are  in  the  NewTestament  two  Greek  verbs,  oldaand  yivuxTKu,  both 
translated  by  the  same  word,  "■know,"  and  so  easily  confounded,  but  which 
need  to  be  clearly  discriminated  by  the  exegete.  The  former,  olda,  means, 
properly,  "  to  be  aware  of;"'  and,  so,  when  used  of  God,  expresses  his  intui- 
tion or  attribute  of  omniscience;  the  latter,  yivuffKu,  means  "  to  come  to 
know,"  or,  "to  take  info  thought;'^  and,  when  used  of  God,  e.xpresses  some 
specific,  initiative  act.  Thus  the  English  reader  can  usually  judge,  from  the 
connection,  which  word  is  used  in  the  Greek  Testament.  These  words  are 
found,  each,  more  than  three  hundred  times;  ol5a  sixteen  times  in  Romans, 
and  yiviIxTKcj  nine  times,  and  twice  In  the  compound  form  irpoyivwrKU. 
This  latter  is  the  word  In  the  text  before  u^,  In  the  form  irpo4yvu),  com- 
pound of  irpo—'  before."  "  of  old,"  and  the  aorist  tense  of  the  verb  "  he 
came  to  know,"  "he  took  note  of;"  and  the  saying  in  the  text  can  mean, 
not  that  God  was  aware  of  the  Gentiles,  but  only,  that  "of  old  God  took 
thought  for  the  Gentiles." 

+  The  word  "foreknowledge,"  used  In  this  passage.  In  Its  Scriptural 
sense  of  forethought,  does  not  involve  the  vexed  question  of  God's  eternal 
awareness,  or  prescience  of  contingencies.  That  question  is  a  matter  en- 
tirely outside  of  the  present  line  of  discussion.  The  discussion  before  us 
is  not  in  regard  to  God's  intuition,  or  awareness,  of  men^s  future  character 
and  actions,  but  solely  in  regard  to  his  own  gracious  forethought  for  their 
salvation.  And  this  forethought  for  them  lies  wholly  in  the  line  of  lils 
fatherly  purpose  and  intervention  in  Christ,— matters  that  are  not  In  the 
sphere  of  his  Intuition,  or  omniscience,  but  are  absolutely,  freely,  within 
his  own  gracious  intention,  whether  to  will  them,  or  to  refrain.  But  In 
regard  to  contingencies,  where  the  debate  Is  not  of  the  divine  purpose,  but 
exclusively  of  man's  future  character  and  actions,  as  dependent  on  his  own 
free  will,  the  case  Is  different.  Those  are  not  under  God's  control.  Now, 
man  himself  does  not  foreknow  (is  not  aware  of)  his  own  future  actions, 
or  those  of  any  other  man:  to  him  they  are  contingent ;  that  is,  not  deter- 
minable beforehand.  But  God's  psychological  characteristics  are  of  the 
same  nature  (if  not  of  the  same  limitations)  as  those  of  man.  If  a  man's 
future  actions  are  in  their  nature  contingent,  undeterminable  beforehand 
by  himself,  they  are  also  contingent  and  undeterminable  toGod.  God  does 
not  foreknow  (Is  not  beforehand  aware  of)  the  outcome  of  contingencies. 


ROMANS  VIII,  29.  269 

ing.  His  saying,  "  AVliom  he  of  old  Iiad  in  his  thought,"  expresses 
God's  fatherly,  gracious  yearning,  from  of  old,  for  all  his  crea- 
tures, his  eternal  thought  and  plan,  not  for  a  few  elect  individuals, 
but  for  every  one  of  them  en  masse.  True,  the  verbal  limitations 
here  restrict  the  present  saying  to  the  Gentile  world.  But  it  at 
least  takes  in  all  the  Gentiles,  in  mass ;  and,  later,  when  he  comes 
to  discuss  tlie  futui'e  of  the  Jews,  he  makes  the  same  sweeping 
assertion  about  them:  "His  people  which  lie  had  in  his  thought." 
(Rom.  xi,  2.)  And  in  this  sense  "God  foreknew"  all  men,  of  all 
races;  that  is,  as  Moses  once  said  of  the  Jews,  "He  set  his  love 
upon  them"  (Deut.  vii,  7)  ;  he  took  them  all  into  liis  thought,  and 
planned  for  the  salvation  of  them  all  alike. 

Yet  this  view,  which,  I  think,  lies  on  the  surface  of  the  apos- 
tle's saying,  is  not  the  one  which  has  usually  been  taken  of  it. 
Two  very  divergent  schools,  the  Calvinistic  and  the  Arminian, 
understand  and  explain  the  verse  very  diffei'ently  from  this  view, 
and  very  differently  from  each  other.  But  both  agree  first  in 
some  fundamental  errors.  The  first  and  chiefest  of  these  errors, 
which  brings  on  all  the  rest,  is  that  they  assume  (what  is  not  true) 
that  the  Epistle  is  a  complete  system  of  Divinity,  written  for  the 
perpetual  didactic  instruction  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  instead  of 
a  polemic  discussion  of  the  local  and  transient  issues  of  the  day ; 
and  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  religious  needs  of  men  at  large, 
indiscriminately  of  races,  and  of  their  relation  to  one  another. 
They  do  not  see  that  the  apostle  has  throughout  the  Epistle  con- 
stantly recognized  and  emphasized  a  broad  distinction  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles ;  and  that  in  this  verse  (as  throughout  the 
Epistle),  he  is  speaking  of  the  Gentiles  alone,  and  not  of  men  in- 
discriminately. They  both  hold  that  the  words  "  whom  God  had 
in  thought,"  are  spoken,  not  of  the  Gentiles  alone,  in  mass,  or  of 
the  world  at  large,  in  mass,  but  of  a  few  individuals,  both  Jew 
and  Gentile,  whom  God  selected  out  of  the  whole  number  of 
men  in  the  world ;  while  the  rest  of  mankind  whom  he  did  not 
have  in  thought,  and  did  not  select  in  this  special  sense,  are 
thereby  left  without  hope  in  the  world,  though  they  constitute 
an  immense  majority  of  the  race.  Further,  these  schools  do  not 
think  that  Paul's  own  words  sufficiently  define  or  particularize 
the  select  individuals  whom  God  thus  foreknew ;  nor  explain 
on  what  conditions  he  foreknew  just  them,  and  not  the  rest  of 
mankind ;  and  so,  in  order  to  express  what  they  respectively 
assume  that  Paul  must  have  meant,  but  left  unsaid,  they  supple- 
ment his   words  with  some  specifications  of  their  own.     What 


270  EXPOSTTTON. 

those  spocifioationa  should  bo,  tlio  two  schools  are  far  from  being 
agreed.  Indeed,  it  is  here  tliat  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  are 
most  divergent. 

Calvinism  declares  that  the  men  wliom  God  selected  out  of 
the  promiscuous  mass  of  mankind,  constitute  an  exact  cataloguable 
list,  whose  number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  can  not  be 
either  increased  or  diminished ;  that  God  predestinated  these 
men  unto  life,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  without  any 
foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perseverance  in  tiiem,  or 
any  other  thing  in  the  creature  moving  him  thereunto;  and  that 
the  rest  of  mankind  God  passed  by  and  ordained  them  to  wrath, 
for  their  sin. 

The  Arminian  divines  also  hold  that  God  selected  out  of  the 
promiscuous  mass  of  mankind,  Jew  and  Gentile,  certain  men, 
limited  in  number,  but  not  a  definite  cataloguable  list,  whom  he  has 
foreknown  and  predestinated  to  eternal  life,  not,  as  the  West- 
minster Confession  teaches,  by  an  act  of  mere  sovereignty,  with- 
out any  foresight  of  faith,  or  anything  in  the  creature  moving  liim 
thereto,  but  expressly  on  the  higher  ethical  ground  of  their  fore- 
seen faith  in  Christ:  and  that  the  rest  of  mankind  are  not 
included  among  the  elect  on  account  of  their  lack  of  individual 
faith. 

But  none  of  these  views,  either  those  in  which  the  two  schools 
agi'ee,  or  those  in  which  they  disagree,  express  Paul's  concept. 
They  are  not  in  accord  with  his  theme  in  the  Epistle,  or  in  the  line 
of  his  present  discussion  ;  and  they  are  found  nowhere  else  in  the 
Bible.  Neither  in  this  chapter,  nor  anywhere  else  does  Paul  speak 
of  election  to  eternal  life.  For  God  does  not  elect  men  to  life,  but 
only  to  opportunities  ;  and  he  does  not  elect  particular  individuals, 
but  only  masses  of  men.  And  here  he  is  speaking,  not  of  men  at 
large,  but  of  the  Gentiles  only,  and  of  them  not  severally,  but  in 
mass.  Paul  does  not  deny,  what  the  synagogue  held,  that  the 
Jews  were  elect  and  called ;  but  he  holds,  what  the  Jews  denied, 
that  the  Gentiles  also,  all  of  them,  are  equally  God's  children,  God's 
elect,  God's  called,  the  objects  from  of  old  of  his  fatherly  concern 
and  fatherly  ingathering.  And  it  is  of  the  Gentiles,  in  mass,  as 
over  against  the  Jews,  that  Paul  uses  here  these  words:  ["The 
Gentiles]  whom  God  of  old  had  in  his  gracious  thought."  Those 
gracious  and  spacious  words,  "whom  he  of  old  had  in  thought," 
leave  no  room  for  any  interpi-etative  addition  about  God's  sov- 
ereign unconditional  choice   of  "some"   men  from  among   his 


kOMANS  VIII,  29.  271 

creatures;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  about  his  "foresight  of  faith" 
n  some  men,  as  a  condition  of  their  election.  The  saying  in  our 
text  that  "  God  foreknew  the  Gentiles,"  and  the  parallel  saying  in 
the  eleventh  chapter,  that  "he  foreknew  the  Jews,"  can  mean 
only  this  (but  how  grand  is  this  meaning,  how  it  ennobles  the 
gospel  plan!)  that  "  from  eternity  God  had  them,  all  of  them,  all 
Gentiles  and  all  Jews,  in  his  thought,  his  fatherly  thought."  This 
is  the  point  that,  emphasizing  Paul's  words,  I  wish  to  enforce,  that 
it  was  all  of  the  Gentiles,  all  of  the  Jews,  in  mass,  whom  God  from 
eternity  had  in  his  thought,  and  called  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  God  devised  the  gospel  plan  to  save  all  men 
from  the  ruin  of  the  fall.  "  He  foreknew  all  men,"  not  an  elect 
few  only ;  that  is,  he  had  all  men  in  his  thought,  both  the  men  of 
the  synagogue,  and  the  men  outside  of  the  synagogue ;  and  of 
those  both,  not  only  those  who  afterwards  should  have  faith,  but 
those  who  should  not  have  faith  ;  and  the  latter  as  really  and  fully 
as  the  former.* 

3.  The  next  debated  point  in  this  verse  is  involved  in  Paul's 
Greek  word,  irpowpia-ev.  This  word  the  Authorized  translates  by 
the  English  word  "predestinated,"  and  the  Revised  by  the  word 
"  foreordained  ;"  with  what  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the  words 
the  Dictionaries  fail  to  tell  us.  These  words  convey  to  most  read- 
ers, as  well  as  to  the  divines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the 
idea  of  an  irresistible  decree  of  God,  an  inexorable  foredoom  of 
men,  to  something  good,  or  to  something  ill, — and  for  the  most  of 
the  race  the  latter.  But  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  Paul's  Greek 
verb.     This  meaning  is  exactly  expressed  by  the  common  English 


*  This  sense  of  the  word  "foreknew"  is  in  harmony  with  all  that  we 
read  in  the  Biljle  in  regard  to  God's  outlook  for  men,  whether  In  mass,  or, 
as  the  word  is  sometimes  used,  in  regard  to  certain  individuals.  Of  the  race 
at  large,  David  cries,  "  What  is  man,  that  thou  art  mindful  of  him?"  (Psa. 
viii,  4) ;  and  Job  says,  "  What  is  man,  that  thou  shouldest  set  thy  mind 
upon  him?"  (Jobvii,  17).  Of  Abraham,  Individually,  God  said,  "I  knew 
him  [had  him  in  my  thought],  to  the  end  that  he  may  comand  his  house- 
hold after  him.  [The  Hebrew  has  the  telle  conjunction  1 1^  X  "]  J7  O  7,  "  In 
order  that,"  or  "  to  the  end  that:"  and  it  does  not  mean,  as  the  Authorized 
translates  it,  "  I  know  him  that  he  will  command  his  house  after  him."] 
(Gen.  xviii,  19).  Of  Jeremiah,  God  said.  "  Before  1  formed  thee,  I  knew  thee 
[had  thee  in  thought],  and  ordained  thee  a  prophet  to  the  nations."  ( Jer. 
1,  5.)  Of  the  Jews,  God  said,  "  Only  you,  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth,  did 
I  know  [had  you  In  my  thought  as  the  theocratic  nation]."  (Amos  ill,  2.) 
"The  Lord  chose  thee  to  be  a  special  people  to  himself."  (Deut.  vii,  6.) 


•273  EXPOSITION. 

words  "  markod  out,"  "delimited,"  or  "circumscribed,"  that  is, 
"  included  in  CnKl's  plan."* 

This  is  the  only  predestination  that  the  Bible  knows  anything 
of, — God's  eternal  forethought  for  man's  salvation,  an  eternal  in- 
clusion of  them  all  in  the  gracious  i)lan  of  tlie  gospel.  God  did 
not  "predestinate"  (decree)  the  Jews,  as  they  thought,  or  any 
one  else,  to  everlasting  life  ;  and  he  certainly  did  not  "  foreoi-dain  " 
the  countless  majority  of  the  race,  or  any  single  soul,  to  dishonor, 
and  wrath,  and  everlasting  death,  "to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
jitxtice!"  The  fatalistic  decree,  tauglit  by  Augustine  and  Calvin, 
and  formulated  three  Imndrcd  years  ago  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, and  iield  even  yet  by  some  belated  theologians,  to  an 
indefeasible  salvation  of  the  elect  and  an  inevitable  damnation  of 
countless  "reprobates,"  is  not  found  in  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament;  and  the  last  half  of  it  is,  as  Calvin  himself  called  it, 
"a  horrible  decree,"  a  di-eadful  travesty  of  God's  most  gracious 
forecasting  for  all  the  sons  of  men. 

The  translation  here  set  forth,"  he  included  them  in  his  plan," 
expi'esses  the  apostle's  concept  in  full ;  and  the  clause  should  end 
with  a  comma. 

4.  In  the  next  clause  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised  add  the 
complemental  infinitive  "  to  be  "  to  express  what  they  conceive  to 
be  the  specific  purpose  of  the  divine  "predestination" — namely, 
that  man,  as  if  previously  unlike  Christ,  should  now  become  con- 
formed to  his  image.  But  it  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  men  are  unlike  Christ;  and  this  is  not  the  apostle's 
thought,  and  it  is  not  the  construction  or  the  meaning  of  the 
sentence.  First,  the  leading  verb,  as  we  have  seen,  does  not  mean 
"  predestinated,"  but  "  included  ;"  and,  secondly,  there  is  no  telic 
infinitive  "  to  be  "  (or  "  to  become  "),  expressed  or  understood,  in 
the  Greek  sentence  ;  and,  thirdly,  the  next  woi-d  is  not  the  participle 


*Tliese  words,  "markod  out,'  express  tlie  full  content  of  the  Greek 
verb.  The  Authorized  and  the  Revised  surreptitiously  Import  Into  this 
meanlnj;  the  added  notion,  not  found  or  implied  in  the  Greek  verb,  of  the 
preposition  "unto,"  ns  if  the  verb  meant  "/le  marked  them  out  unto"'— thfit 
is,  "destinated  "  or  '-ordained  them  unto  the  being  conformed  "—though 
there  is  no  terminus  m  quern  "  to  be."  expressed  or  understood.  The  word  is 
compounded  of  Trpo— "of  old."  "dating  from  eternity  "—and  optfw— "to 
bound,  to  include  in  definite  limits."  This  verb  is  the  word  from  which 
we  get  the  English  word  "horizon,"  the  line  which  "bounds"  or  "circum- 
scribes our  field  of  vision."  In  Paul's  use  of  the  verb  here,  it  declares  that 
God  from  of  old  swept  the  lines  of  his  plan  around  the  Gentile  world. 


ROMANS  VIII,  29.  273 

"  conformed  "  (though  tliis  is  approximately  correct  for  the  sense), 
and  is  grammatically  the  adjective  conform  (like  other  com- 
pounds, "uniform,"  "multiform,"  "reform,"  "deform"*);  and, 
fourthly,  this  adjective  is  not  predicative  of  an  assumed  verb,  "  to 
be,"  but  attributive  to  the  word  them  ("the  Gentiles"),  under- 
stood, the  object  of  the  verb  "predestinated,"  "included  in  his 
plan;"  and  the  translation  sliould  run,  "  He  included  them  ('the 
Gentiles'),  men  conform  with  the  im.age  of  his  Son."  The 
clause  does  not  express  the  divine  purpose,  but  the  ground  of  the 
divine  forethought  and  forecast  for  the  Gentiles;  that  is.  God 
counted  them  in,  not  in  order  that  they  might  become  conform 
with  the  image  of  his  Son,  but  because  they  were  already  conform 
with  his  image,  already  conform  with  it  by  the  very  fact  that  they 
were  men,  ''created  in  his  image"  (Gen.  i,  27),  sharers  with  Christ 
in  the  same  humanity,  body  and  soul.  It  is  in  this  explicit  sense 
that  Paul  said  to  the  Gentiles  of  Galatia:  "Because  ye  are  sons, 
God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts."  (Gal.  iv,  6.) 
And  so,  fifthly,  the  last  word,  "  image,"  means,  not  Christ's  moral 
image  of  holiyiess,  but  his  natural  image,  all  that  made  him  man. 
It  is  in  this  sense  that  in  the  Resurrection  Chapter,  Paul  says: 
"As  we  bore  the  [natural]  image  of  the  earthly  man,  we  shall  bear 
also  the  [natural]  image  of  the  heavenly  man."  (1  Cor.  xv,  49.) 
And  to  the  Philippians  he  says:  "  "We  await  the  Lord  Jesus  as  our 
Savior  from  heaven,  who  will  refashion  our  body  of  humiliation, 
conform  with  his  glorious  body."     (Phil,  iii,  21.) 

This  clause,  which  expresses  a  complete  sense,  should  be 
punctuated  with  a  semicolon. 

5.  It  is  only  in  the  last  clause,  that  Christ  may  be  firstborn 
among  many  brethren,  that  the  apostle  expresses  the  purpose 
of  the  divine  action.  This  verb,  ''that  Christ  may  be,"  is  not  de- 
pendent, as  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised,  upon  the  word 
"conformed,"  but  on  the  verb  "predestinated,"  "included  in  his 
plan ;"  and  it  sets  forth  the  end  that  God  had  in  view  in  his  large 
plans  for  the  world.  This  divine  aim  was  not  so  much  to  glorify 
Christ  among  his  brethren  (though  this  is  also  true),  as  to  gather 
many  brethren  to  Christ.  The  emphatic  word  here  is  "many;" 
and,  like  Paul's  other  salient  word  "  all,"  we  can  not  make  it  too 
emphatic.  The  apostle's  thought  is  that  God,  with  his  gracious  and 
wide  outlook,  embraced  in  the  scope  of  the  gospel  plan,  not  the 


"•  More  dr»^adful  and  deform."—"  Paradise  Lost,"  li,  706. 
18 


274  EXPOSITION. 

Jews  only,  but  the  numberless  Gentiles  as  well,  "  in  oi-der  that 
Christ  may  be  firstborn''  among  many  bretliren  ;"  that  is,  the 
divine  election  and  call  of  men  into  Church  relations  here,  and 
their  resurrection  to  eternal  life,  are  not  of  the  Jews  only,  who, 
racially,  were  comparatively  insignificant,  "  the  fewest  of  all 
peoples"  (Deut.  vii,  7)  ;  nay,  but  the  horizon  of  the  gospel  sweeps 
the  compass  of  tlie  globe  ;  it  is,  and  was  from  of  old,  inclusive 
of  the  whole  Gentile  world.  This  is  Paul's  concept  in  the  word 
*'inany."  Christ  is  to  be  counted  firstborn,  not,  as  the  Jewish 
synagogues  would  have  made  him,  of  the  few  Jews  only ;  not,  as 
Calvinisna  would  make  him,  of  a  few  elect  saints,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  the  rest  of  tlie  world ;  but  as  the  Pauline  gospel  makes  him, 
"firstborn  of  maiiy  brethren  ;"  that  is,  of  the  whole  Gentile  world, 
a  "multitude  that  no  man  can  number." 

With  tills  underlying  thought  and  Interpretation,  this  verse  in 
particular,  and  the  entire  paragrapli  in  whicli  it  stands,  instead  of 
being  irreconcilable  with  our  ideas  of  right,  and  incapable  of  ex- 
planation on  the  basis  of  God's  fair  dealing  with  men,  becomes 
luminous,  generous,  noble,  and  in  harmony  with  our  sense  of  the 
Divine  equity  and  with  our  concept  of  the  cosmopolitan  gospel  of 
Christ.  It  is  a  preacliable  gospel.  Paul  declared  that  lie  was  not 
ashamed  of  it.  He  was  able  to  look  men  in  the  face  without 
blushing  for  sucli  a  gospel,  or  for  himself  as  Christ's  ambassador. 
The  gospel  proclaims  to  every  man  an  equal  chance.  God  remains 
tolerable,  his  government  unimpeachable,  man's  freedom  invio- 
late; and  Christ  can  be  preached  as  the  Savior  who  "wills  that 
all  men  shall  be  saved  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  tlie  truth." 

Verse  30.  But  whom  he  of  old  included  in  his  plan, 
these  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he  called,  these  he  also 
justified  ;  but  whom  he  justified,  these  he  also  glorified. 

The  verbs  in  this  verse  express  the  successive  steps  of  the  plan 
which  God  planned  of  old,  and  which  he  lield,  in  his  counsels, 
potentially  accomplished  in  Christ,  for  the  entire  race,  past, 
present,  and  future ;  though,  in  fact,  the  fifth  and  final  act  in  the 
series  will  be  historically  i-ealized  only  at  the  last  day. 


*The  term  "firstborn"  Is  usually  understood  as  expressing  Christ's 
official  pre-eminence.  But  the  connection  suggests  that  It  here  has  refer- 
ence to  the  general  resurrection.  It  Is  thus  that  Paul  calls  hlin  "  the  first- 
born from  the  dead"  (Col.  1, 18),  and  John  calls  him  "  the  firstborn  of  the 
dead"  (Rev.  1, 15). 


ROMANS  VIII,  SI.  275 

The  words  of  Paul  were  spoken  in  the  line  of  his  argument  for 
the  Gentiles,  and  must  be  so  interpreted  ;  yet  they  are  general, 
and  broad  enough  to  cover  the  case  of  all  men.  The  gospel  scheme 
knows  no  distinctions  among  men  on  the  basis  of  nature,  or  of 
divine  decree.  What  the  gospel  provides  and  does  for  our  race,  it 
provides  and  does  for  all  races  alike ;  what  it  does  for  one  man,  it 
does  for  all  men.  The  differences  which  God  has  established 
among  men  in  this  world  are  differences,  not  in  their  moral  and 
spiritual  status,  but  only  in  their  providential  and  temporal  cir- 
cumstances. Other  distinctions  of  caste,  or  social  institutions,  or 
positions,  are  the  work  of  men  themselves;  and  "God  does  not 
respect  them." 

We  may  notice  how  strongly  the  points  enumerated  in  this 
verse  confirm  the  exegesis  of  the  chapter  and  of  the  Epistle  at 
large.  The  apostle  presents  the  work  of  justification  as  the  central 
and  controlling  issue  in  the  discussion;  and  he  does  not  discuss, 
or  even  allude  to,  the  subject  of  sanciification,  as  one  of  the  steps 
in  this  climax. 

Verse  31.  "What  then  shall  "we  say  in  regard  to  these 
things  ?    If  God  is  for  us,  who  is  against  us  ? 

The  question,  "What  then  shall  we  say?  is  usually  a  chal- 
lenge from  an  opponent ;  but  here  seems  to  be  in  the  line  of  the 
apostle's  own  thought,  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  his  teachings 
in  regard  to  God's  plan  for  the  Gentile  world.  And  so,  if  a  chal- 
lenge at  all,  it  may  be  counted  as  Paul's  challenge  to  the  Jewish 
gainsayer.  And  the  apostle  now  may  well  ask  his  Jewish  opponent: 
"  What  shall  we  say  in  reference  to  this  overwhelming  evidence  of 
divine  concern  and  effective  interposition  in  behalf  of  the  Gentile 
world?"  According  to  this  explanation,  the  pronoun  "we"  rep- 
resents not  only  Paul,  but  the  opponent  as  well.  But  in  the  next 
clause  the  personal  pronoun  us — "for  us,  against  us," — is  spoken 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  Gentiles,  and  not  of  the  Jews ;  and 
shows,  as  so  often,  that  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  here  identifies 
himself  with  them.  And  with  this  thought,  he  asks  the  question, 
If  God  is  for  us, — if  God  is  on  our  side,  if  God  stands  for  us  Gen- 
tiles, who  is  there  against  us?  But,  possibly,  we  may  let  Paul's 
last  pronoun  "  against  us  "  include  One  more.  It  would  well  accord 
with  his  line  of  thought :  Christ  and  the  Gentiles  are  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority:  we  march  to  victory!  "Who  is  against  us?" 
Against  the  Infinite  God,  how  less  than  nothing  the  mightiest  an- 


276  EXPOSITION. 

tagonist;  how  beneath  all  count,  the  juDtij  Jew!  If  God  of  old 
marked  out  tlie  Gentile  world  for  this  place  in  his  sight,  tlie  Jew 
will  gainsay  in  vain. 

Verse  32.  He  who,  at  least,  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
but  gave  him  up  for  us  all,  how  will  he  not  also  with  him 
graciously  give  us  all  things? 

The  words  which  tlie  apostle  uses  in  this  verse,  in  regard  to 
Christ,  he  quotes  from  God's  words  to  Abraham  when  he  offered 
up  his  son  Isaac :  "Because  thou  didst  this  thing,  and  didst  not 
spare  thy  son,  thy  beloved  son — "  (Gen.  xxii,  16).  Abraham's 
offering  of  his  son  was  the  greatest  proof  he  could  give  of  his 
obedience  to  God.  In  like  manner,  God's  giving  up  his  own  Son 
to  death  was  the  greatest  proof  he  could  give  of  his  love  for  man. 
Jesus  himself  declared  to  Nicodemus,  "  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  has  faith  on 
him  may  not  perish,  but  may  have  eternal  life."  (John  iii,  16.) 
This  thought  Paul  here  reiterates:  "  He  gave  him  up  (to  death) 
for  us  all,"  and  then  adds,  that,  "  since  God  gave  this  greatest 
gift,  much  more  will  he  with  him,  give  us  all  things."  The  Greek 
verb  in  the  last  clause  means  more  than  "give,"  it  means  give  as 
a  matter  of  grace. 

Verses  33,  34.  "Who  will  charge  aught  against  God's 
elect?  "Will  God,  who  justified  them?  Who  is  he  that 
will  condemn  them?  Is  it  Christ,  who  died?  but,  rather, 
who  was  raised?  who  also  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God? 
who  also  intercedes  for  us? 

The  leading  questions  in  these  two  verses  are  a  definite  repro- 
duction of  the  more  general  thought  in  the  question  in  the  thirty- 
first  verse.  There  it  was  asked,  generally,  "  Who  is  against  us?" 
Here  the  deprecated  antagonism  is  set  forth  in  terms  of  judicial 
arraignment.  The  reference  is,  of  course,  to  the  captious  opposi- 
tion of  the  Jew  to  the  equality  of  the  Gentile. 

These  questions  (as  also  in  the  thirty-fifth  verse)  are  not  asked 
for  information,  but  argumentatively,  and  they  imply  negative 
answers—"  There  is  no  one."  But  the  answer  in  each  case  is  given 
in  the  form  of  a  rebutting  question.  The  rejoinder  has  thus  a 
stronger  rhetorical  force,  and  the  piled  up  questions  at  the  end 
of  the  thirty-fourth  verse,  so  characteristic  of  Paul's  cumulative 
style,  make  a  very  striking  climax. 

The  woi-ds,  God's  elect,  in  this  verse  are  spoken  of  the  Gen- 


ROMANS  nil.    35,  36.  211 

tiles.  They  were  elect  of  God,  "  who  elected  them  in  Christ,  before 
the^foundation  of  the  world."  (Eph.  i,  4.)  They  were  of  old  in 
God's  thouglits  ;  they  were  included  in  his  plan  ;  they  were  marked 
out  as  his  own;  they  were  called  to  the  oi)portunity  of  salvation. 
While  the  race  was  still  one,  and  Gentile,  "  God  established  his 
covenant  with  them,  and  with  their  seed  after  them."  (Gen. 
ix,  9.)  God's  election  is  not  an  election  of  some  particular  men 
to  life,  but  an  election  of  all  men  to  the  opportunity  of  life.  In 
this  sense  the  Gentiles  were  chosen  en  masse.  The  call  of  the  Jews 
afterwards  (which  did  not  cancel,  or  suspend,  the  call  of  the  Gen- 
tiles) was  not  to  life  in  any  sense  that  was  not  already  theirs  in 
common  with  the  Gentiles,  but  to  special  theocratic  and  mission- 
ary functions  in  the  way  of  God's  religious  j^rovision  for  the  world 
at  large:  "Jehovah,  thy  God,  chose  thee  to  be  a  special  people 
unto  himself,  above  all  the  peoples  which  are  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth"  (Deut.  vii,  6)  ;  but  certainly  not  to  the  salvation  of  every 
individual  Jew,  and  certainly  not  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Gentiles 
from  the  earlier  covenant  and  from  the  opportunity  of  salvation. 
All  Gentiles  and  all  Jews  have  always  had  the  opportunity  of  life. 
But  it  is  very  far  from  being  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  that 
all  persons,  Gentile  or  Jew,  on  the  ground  of  being  of  these  elect 
peoples,  are  personally  righteous,  or  are  even  desirous  of  being 
saved.  Opportunity  is  not  always  importunity.  "God  wills  that 
all  men  should  be  saved ;"  but  at  the  same  time  sorrowfully  con- 
demns the  men  who  disobey. 

Here  the  Gentile  world  is  spoken  of  as  "  God's  elect ;"  and  the 
verse  declares  that  against  them,  therefore,  the  gainsaying  of  the 
Jew  can  avail  naught.  "Who  will  bring  charges  against  God's 
elect?  Will  God,  the  One  that  justifies  them?"  This  simple  pre- 
sentation of  the  case  is  the  conclusive  reductio  ad  absurdmn.  If 
the  Infinite  God  justifies  them,  surely  the  cavil  of  the  petty  Jew 
counts  for  nothing ;  it  weighs  less  than  the  dust  of  the  balance. 

Verses  35,  36.  Who  will  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
Christ?  Will  affliction?  or  anguish?  or  persecution?  or 
famine?  or  nakedness?  or  danger?  or  sword?  according 
as  it  has  been  written,  that, 

For  thy  sake  w^e  are  put  to  death  all  the  day  long  ; 

We  w^ere  reckoned  as  sheep  for  slaughter  ?    (Psa.  xl,  22.) 

The  leading  question  is  a  C(jmprehensive  one,  intended  to 
cover  all  the  points  not  touched  on  in  the  previous  verses.     And 


278  EXPOSITION. 

the  apostle,  assuming  that  the  Jew  avails  naught  against  us,  now 
further  asks,  in  tornis  of  the  widest  possible  i*ange,  "Who  will 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  towards  us?  And  then, 
as  lu*  fan  niune  no  jursou  in  answer  to  liis  (juestion,  he  names 
seven  temporal  troubles  that  maj'  befall  God's  children,  but  none 
of  which  can  separate  them  from  his  love.  The  language  seems  to 
be  a  reminiscence  of  the  words  of  the  Temanite:  "He  will  de- 
liver thee  in  six  troubles;  yea,  in  seven  no  evil  will  touch  thee, — 
in  famine,  in  war,  in  destruction,"  etc.  (Job  v.  19.)  Paul's  list  is 
not  the  same  as  the  older  list ;  but  to  name  the  things  in  either  list 
as  separating  us  from  God  is  to  reject  them,  and  to  reject  the  whole 
possible  catalogue  of  such  merely  external  troubles.  Not  a  whole 
Iliad  of  woes  can  separate  us  from  Christ ;  but  they  may  draw  us 
nearer  to  him.  "  He  will  not  hide  his  face  fi-om  us  in  the  day  of 
trouble."  (Psa.  cii,  2.)  "Though  tlie  outward  man  decay,  yet 
the  inward  man  is  renewed  day  by  day."     (2  Cor.  iv,  16.) 

Paul's  word  sword  at  the  end  of  the  thirty-fifth  verse  sug- 
gested to  his  mind  the  apt  quotation  in  the  thirty-sixth  verse, 
which  is  accordingly  exegetical  of  this  word  only.  The 'interroga- 
tive mark  should  therefore  be  carried  forward  to  the  end  of  the 
thirty-sixth  verse. 

Verse  37.  Nay,  but  in  these  things  all,  we  do  more 
than  conquer,  through  him  that  loved  us. 

The  intensive  verb  in  this  sentence,  we  do  more  than  con- 
quer, means  that  we  wage  not  merely  an  equal  contest  with  our 
troubles,  but  that  we  are  overvictorious  through  Christ  that  loved 
us.  The  troubles  of  this  life,  and  especially  the  opposition  of  the 
Jew,  do  not  exclude  us  from  the  covenant,  do  not  sap  the  peace 
of  God's  children,  much  less  alienate  them  from  their  fealty  to 
him.  The  best  commentary  is  Paul's  own  saying  to  the  Corinthian 
Gentiles:  "For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a  moment, 
works  out  for  us  more  and  more  exceedingly  an  eternal  weight  of 
glory."     (2  Cor.  iv.  17.) 

Verses  38,  39.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death, 
nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  things  present, 
nor  things  to  come,  nor  powers  ;  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor 
any  other  creature,  w^ill  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love 
of  God,  w^hich  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

The  explicative  conjunction  for  as.signs  a  reason  for  the  pre- 
ceding verse ;  and  expands  the  thought  begun  in  the  thirty-fifth 


ROMANS  VIII.    38,  39.  279 

verse,  that  nothing  will  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
Christ.  In  tliat  verse  seven  external  troubles,  of  the  many  inci- 
dent to  human  experience,  are  specified,  which,  yet,  the  apostle 
declares,  will  not  be  able  to  separate  from  the  love  of  Christ. 
But  here,  in  the  thirty-eighth  verse,  he  advances  a  step  still  further, 
and  says  that  no  active  force,  animate  or  inanimate,  will  be  able  to 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  God.  He  designates  ten  such  forces. 
The  exact  meaning  of  some  of  these  words  is  in  doubt ;  but  the 
three  styled  angels,  principalities,  powers  seem  to  denote  va- 
rious orders  of  the  heavenly  hierai'chy,  as  held  by  the  Jews,  and 
incidentally  recognized  by  the  Cliristian  Scriptures.  Paul  in  cata- 
loguing these  angelic  orders  does  not  assume  that  they  are  hostile 
to  man ;  but  that  for  illustration's  sake  only  they  may  be  con- 
ceived as  working  against  us.  In  this  same  way  Paul  says  to  the 
Galatians,  "  If  an  angel  from  heaven  pi'each  a  gospel  different  from 
that  which  we  preached  to  you,  let  him  be  anathema."  (Gal.  i,  8.) 
The  other  words  in  this  list  denote  mere  natural  forces,  which  can 
have  no  animus  against  us ;  but  may  also  be  conceived  of  as  be- 
coming obstructions.  But  most  probably  the  apostle  in  the  fervor 
and  rapidity  of  composition  catalogued  these  ten  individual  forces 
quite  promiscuously  as  they  occurred  to  him  (as  also  the  seven  in 
the  thirty-fifth  verse),  and  without  having  any  very  definite  con- 
ception, himself,  of  them  severally ;  and  he,  perhaps,  might,  with 
equal  appropriateness,  have  named  as  many  more.  This  is  con- 
firmed by  the  vagueness  of  the  last  one  of  the  ten  named:  "  None 
of  those  forces,  or  things,  or  any  yet  different  creature." 

Such  is  the  noble,  inspiring  conclusion  of  tliis  most  noble 
chapter.  The  grandeur  of  the  apostle's  theme,  and  the  grandeur 
of  the  apostle's  thoughts,  and  the  grandeur  of  the  apostle's  style, 
can  not  be  sui-passed,  if  they  can  be  equaled  in  all  the  world's 
literature.  Erasmus,  in  his  commentary  on  verse  35,  says,  and  we 
may  extend  his  remark  to  the  whole  chapter,  "What  did  Cicero 
ever  say  more  grandly  eloquent  ?" 


CHAPTER    IX. 


Verses  1,  2.  I  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  do  not  lie ;  my 
consciousness  bearing  witness  with  me  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  I  have  great  grief  and  unceasing  anguish  in  my  heart. 

The  argument  in  tlie  jM-evious  chapter  has  clearly  demonstrated 
that  the  Gentiles  hold  an  equal  jjlace  with  the  Jews,  in  the  eternal 
and  now  consummated  plans  of  God.  All  Scripture  testimonies, 
of  which  Paul  quotes  many,  point  to  the  fact,  that,  from  the  first, 
the  Gentiles  (who  once  were  all  there  were  in  the  world),  were 
ever  present  in  the  thought  of  God,  and  were  included  in  his 
plan.  The  eiglith  chapter  is  tlie  triumplial  pa?an  of  the  Gentile 
world,  as  sons  of  God,  in  the  Church  of  Clirist.  No  one  in  heaven, 
or  earth,  or  hcH,  can  separate  them  from  the  love  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus.  The  issue  in  their  behalf  has  been  made  up,  the  case  heard, 
the  verdict  reached.  And,  so  far  as  concerns  the  Gentiles,  which 
was  the  one  matter  in  debate,  there  is  no  longer  need  to  vindicate 
their  rights,  and  the  apostle  might  now  have  staid  his  hand. 

But  there  is  also  another  issue  made  up  in  the  apostle's  mind ; 
and  to  this  issue  he  devotes  the  next  three  weighty,  much  debated 
chapters.  The  question  that  he  here  discusses  is  no  longer.  Where 
do  the  Gentiles  stand?  but,  reversing  the  investigation,  rather, 
"Where  do  the  Jewn  stand  before  God  ?  He  no  longer  inquires,  Do 
they  still  hold  their  former  pre-eminence  in  the  Church?  rather 
he  inquires.  Do  they  hold  any  place  in  it  at  all  ? 

And  to  the  consideration  of  this  grave  question  the  apostle 
now  addresses  himself.  We  shall  however  follow  his  discussion 
better  by  presenting  in  advance  an  outline  of  the  New  Testament 
teachings,  and  especially  Paul's  own  teachings  in  regard  to  his 
own  people,  and  in  regard  to  their  relation  past  and  present  and 
future  to  God's  plan  for  the  world  at  large. 

1.  God's  plans  from  the  first,  as  we  have  abundantly  seen,  took 
in  the  entire  race  indiscriminately.     But  afterwards,  in  view  of 

280 


ROMANS  IX.    1,  2.  281 

the  increasing  wickedness  of  the  world,  and  the  corruption  of 
religion  among  men,  God  selected  a  i)articular  family,  and  race, 
to  become  an  organized  Church  for  the  worsliip  of  God;  and  a 
missionary  Church,  for  the  recovery  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 

2.  This  position  and  its  privileges  were  given  provisionally  to 
Abraham  and  his  posterity ;  not,  as  the  Jews  finally  came  to 
tliink,  for  any  personal  merit,  in  themselves,  nor  yet  solely  for 
themselves,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Gentiles  from  the  provisions 
of  grace  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  explicitly  for  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles.  God,  in  calling  Abraham,  expressly  said  to  him,  "In 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  [Gentiles]  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
(Gen.  xxii,  18.) 

3.  God's  choice  of  Abraham  and  his  posterity  was  not  arbitrary 
or  capricious ;  but  for  sufficient  and  evi4cnt  reasons.  He  selected 
Abraham  on  account  of  his  faith  in  God  ;  as  a  man  fitted  to  be  the 
chief  in  a  great  religious  movement;  and  later,  from  tlie  stock  of 
Abraham,  by  various  eliminations  of  the  less  promising  scions  of 
the  family,  he  selected  Isaac,  rather  than  the  firstborn  son  Ish- 
mael,  and  Jacob,  rather  than  the  firstborn  son  Esau,  because  of 
their  natural  predispositions  which  fitted  them  to  become  the 
fathers  of  a  nation  charged  with  special  religious  functions. 

4.  Of  this  nation,  God  became  the  King,  or  civil  Ruler,  in  as 
real  a  sense  as  he  became  their  God.  Such  a  government  in  which 
the  civil  and  the  religious  functions  are  united  is  called  a  'Hheoc- 
racy."  Josephus,  who  coined  this  word,  and  who  first  gave  the 
Israelites  this  appropriate  name,  says:  "Our  legislator  [Moses; 
but  Moses,  under  God]  ordained  our  government  to  be  what,  by  a 
strained  expression,  may  be  termed  a  theocracy,  by  ascribing  the 
authority  and  power  to  God."     (Apion  II,  16.) 

Even  after  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  under 
Saul,  and  his  successors,  until  the  final  destruction  of  the  State, 
this  theocratic  concept  of  the  government  was  still  formally  re- 
tained ;  God  was  still  thought  of  as  King ;  the  State  was  a  kingdom 
of  God,  on  earth  ;  the  eartlily  kings  were  his  vicegerents. 

5.  The  call  of  the  Jews  as  the  theocratic  people  involved  for 
them  not  only  their  citizenship  in  the  nation,  but  also  their  mem- 
bership in  the  State  Church ;  which  two  things,  however,  in  the 
Jewish  mind  were  identical.  These  civil  and  religious  privileges  of 
the  Jews  were  altogether  of  an  external  character;  and  attached 
to  them  en  masse  absolutely,  by  birthright  in  State  and  Church; 
but  they  did  not  involve  their  individual  acceptance  with  God,  and 


282  EXPOSITION. 

their  final  snlvntion  :  just  as,  contrariwise,  the  non-call  of  Ishmai'l, 
and  of  Esau,  and  of  the  Gentiles  at  largo,  into  this  citizenship  and 
Church  metnbersliip,  ccrtainl}'  did  not  involve  tlieir  damnation  en 
mass*',  or  individually ;  and  did  not  exclude  them  severally  from 
the  grace  of  God.  No  doubt  the  Jews  with  their  special  theocratic 
privileges  had  better  religious  opportunities  and  encouragements 
than  the  Gentiles ;  but  the  Gentiles  were  also  equally  objects  of 
God's  love  and  care,  equally  elect  to  salvation,  and,  though  they 
were  not  yet  outwardly  called,  en  masse,  into  an  organized  and  vis- 
ible Church,  their  title  was  only  dormant.  But  every  man  of  them 
could  still  make  his  individual  calling  and  election  sure.  Every 
man  in  both  classes,  Jew  and  Gentile,  equally  needed  to  work 
out  his  own  individual  salvation,  independently  of  his  national 
franchise. 

6.  While  God,  in  the  order  of  his  providential  government, 
dealt  with  the  elect  nation  en  masse,  he  also  always,  in  the  sphere  of 
his  grace,  dealt  with  each  soul,  individually.  All  Jews,  indiscrim- 
inately, were  in  the  theocratic  kingdom  by  virtue  of  their  natural 
birtli  from  Abraham  and  Jacob ;  no  single  adult  Jew  was  in  the 
spiritual  "  kingdom  of  God,"  except  by  virtue  of  this  new  birth  of 
the  Spirit,  from  his  individual  faith.  So  Jesus  said  to  Nicodemus, 
"  Verily  I  say  to  thee,  ye  [that  is,  ye  Jews;  notice  the  plural  pro- 
noun), must  be  born  again;  lyour  Jewish  birth  does  not  avail]. 
Unless  one  (even  a  Jew)  be  born  from  water  and  Spirit,  he  can 
not  enter  into  the  [new  spiritual]  kingdom  of  God."  (John  iii,5.) 
And  in  this  particular,  Gentiles  could  stand  side  by  side  with 
Jewish  believers,  and  be  counted  with  them  as  "  children  of  God." 
The  Jews  trusted  to  their  national  descent;  they  relied  on  works 
for  justification  ;  the  Gentiles  who  had  none  of  these  boasted 
qualifications  of  birth  and  works,  could  come  into  God's  kingdom 
only  by  the  inward  qualification  of  faith.  And  so  Christ  said  to 
Nicodemus,  that  "  every  man  [Jew  or  Gentile]  that  has  faith  may 
have  life  eternal."  (John  iii,  16.)  And  it  is  Paul's  thought  in  his 
gospel,  that  as  all  Jews  were  in  the  theocratic  kingdom  by  birth, 
but  must  enter  the  spiritual  kingdom  by  faith,  so  all  Gentiles, 
also,  though  failing  the  outward  qualifications,  are  already,  like 
the  Jews,  subjects,  potentially, of  tiie  kingdom  of  grace  ;  and  every 
adult  of  either  class  may  by  faith  at  any  moment  become  experi- 
mentally a  member  of  that  kingdom.  The  doors  open  to  each  be- 
liever, Jew  or  Gentile,  at  his  own  forceful  will.  Said  Christ  to  the 
Jews,  "  Since  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom 


ROMANS  IX.   1,  2.  283 

of  heaven  suffers  violence,  and  violent  [strenuous]  men  of  what- 
ever nationality  take  it  by  storm."     (Matt,  xi,  12.) 

7.  God  planned  his  Church  on  earth,  from  the  first,  on  gener- 
ous lines  ;  lie  intended  it  to  unfold  at  last  into  a  spiritual  kingdom 
which  should  know  no  limit  but  that  of  the  entire  race.  The  Jews 
knew  all  this  ;  their  own  Scriptures  were  full  of  it.  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  taught  this  coming  universal  reign  of  Messiah,  and 
the  free  accession  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
God.  And  they  also  warned  the  Jews  against  unfaith  in  these 
prophecies,  and  foretold  their  rejection,  if  disobedient,  from  the 
theocratic  kingdom.  And  Christ  told  them,  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
will  be  taken  from  you,  and  will  be  given  to  a  nation  [clearly  the 
Gentiles]  bringing  forth  the  fruit  thereof."  (Mark  xxi,  43.)  If 
the  Jews  had  accepted  him  as  their  Messiah,  and  his  plans  for 
their  Church,  what  a  resplendent  future  would  have  been  theirs! 
They  might  long  since  have  won  the  world  to  Christ.  Instead, 
what  an  awful  tragedy  their  history  has  been !  That  last  most 
wonderful  prophecy  of  Moses  promised  them  glorious  blessings. 
Instead  of  these,  they  incurred  the  dreadful  curses  denounced 
therein  upon  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people.  (Deut.  chapter 
xxviii.) 

8.  But  the  Jews  from  the  first  systematically  misunderstood 
the  nature  and  purpose  of  their  call.  They  deemed  themselves 
favorites  of  heaven ;  they  prided  themselves  upon  their  descent 
from  Abraham,  and  upon  the  covenant  with  the  fathers,  and  upon 
the  circumcision  which  was  its  seal.  Instead  of  seeking  to  become, 
as  God  intended  them,  a  Church  and  a  home  for  mankind  at  large, 
they  became  ever  more  narrow,  unsympathetic  with  the  spir- 
itual needs  of  others,  inhospitable,  repellent.  They  neglected 
their  one  call  as  a  propagandist  Church,  and  closed  the  doors  of 
hope  to  the  Gentile  world.  They  did  not  welcome  proselytes,  until 
within  the  century  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  then  not  from 
a  love  of  souls.  They  believed  the  Church  of  Moses  was  final ;  and 
they  felt  themselves  secure  of  a  place  in  the  Church  here,  and  of 
eternal  salvation  hereafter.  They  thought  no  Jew,  however  un- 
worthy otherwise,  could  perish  ;  and  no  one  of  any  other  nation, 
however  righteous,  could  be  saved,  except  by  becoming  a  Jew. 
It  is  true  that  Gentiles  without  circumcision  were  admitted  as 
inquirers  to  the  worship  of  the  synagogue,  but  they  were  not  ad- 
mitted to  the  worship  of  the  temple,  or  to  partake  of  the  passover, 
or  even  to  eat  with  a  Jew.     Indeed  some  even  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 


284  EXPOSITION. 

tiuns  taught  the  Gentile  Christians,  "  Unless  ye  be  circumcised 
with  the  rite  of  Moses  ye  can  not  be  saved."     (Acts  xv,  1.) 

9.  God's  covenant  witli  tlie  Jews  was  not  absolute  and  irre- 
versible, but  contingent  on  their  obedience.  God  was  not  bound 
by  the  letter  of  his  promises;  but  during  all  their  history  lu-ld 
himself  free  to  cancel  his  covenant  and  i)romises  for  cause.  Time 
and  again  he  changed  his  course  towards  the  kings  of  Israel  and 
the  people,  and  revoked  his  promises,  and  drove  them  into  cap- 
tivity, and  at  last  finally  canceled  his  covenant  with  them,  both 
as  nation  and  as  Church.  The  principle  of  his  conduct  towards 
tliem  was  explicitly  announced  in  tlieir  Scriptures:  "At  wliat  mo- 
ment I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation  and  concerning  a  kingdom, 
to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy  it ;  and  tliat  nation 
concerning  which  I  spoke,  turn  from  its  evil,  then  I  will  repent  of 
the  evil  which  1  thought  to  do  to  it.  And  at  what  moment  I  shall 
speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build  and 
to  plant  it,  and  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice  ; 
then  I  will  repent  of  the  good  witli  which  I  said  I  would  benefit  it." 
(Jer.  xviii,  7-10.) 

10.  And  now  in  these  chapters  Paul  teaches  that  the  condem- 
nation so  long  threatened  has  come  upon  them.  They  have 
rejected  Jesus  as  Messiah.  God  rejects  them  as  the  theocratic 
people,  the  basis  of  his  Church.  Henceforth  he  will  have  no 
theocratic  nation,  and  will  build  his  kingdom  and  his  Church,  not 
upon  Jew^-born  men,  but  upon  regenerate  men  of  any  nationality 
as  the  spiritual  foundation  stones,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  Corner-stone.  And  he  calls  the  Gentiles  into  this  open  and 
free  communion. 

11.  But  we  must  recollect  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  from 
being  the  special  theocratic  nation,  which  was,  of  course,  a  rejec- 
tion of  them  en  masse — men,  women,  and  cliildren — did  not  fnvolve 
the  rejection  of  any  Jew,  individually,  from  the  possibility  of  being 
saved.  The  Jews  thus  rejected  were  not,  therefore,  "  turned  into 
hell,"  but  simply  fall  back  into  the  primitive  and  promiscuous  con- 
dition of  the  race  from  which  their  great  forefather  had  been  called, 
and  which  the  Gentiles  at  large  still  filled.  And  now,  no  longer 
distinguished  by  any  religious  prerogative  from  the  Gentiles,  tlii'y 
could  enter  only  on  the  ground  of  individual  faitli  into  the  spiritual 
kingdom  of  God,  the  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  syna- 
gogue of  the  Jews- still  survived  as  a  voluntary  religious  organiza- 
tion, though  it  was  now  hostile  to  Christ,  "  a  synagogue  of  Satan  " 


ROMANS  IX\  3.  285 

(Rev.  ii,  9) ;  but  many  individuals  from  the  synagogue,  yet  in  ever 
diminishing  numbers,  "cleaved  to  Christ." 

And  so  Paul,  while  he  unsparingly  condemned  their  course  as 
apostates  from  Christ,  did  not  count  them  as  hopeless  reprobates. 
Wherever  he  went  he  sought  to  preach  to  the  Jews  first  of  all.  He 
never  taught  the  eternal  perdition  of  the  Jews  en  masse  ;  but  ex- 
pressly declared  that  "  God  did  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he 
had  in  his  thoughts  and  plans." 

The  sustained  sentiment  of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to 
the  Jews,  especially  the  common  people  of  them,  is  one  of  for- 
bearance. Christ  prayed  for  them,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they 
know^  not  what  they  do"  (Luke  xxiii,  34)  ;  and  Peter  said  to  the 
Jews :  "  I  know  that  in  ignorance  ye  did  it,  as  did  also  your  rulers  " 
(Acts  iii,  17)  ;  and  Paul  said  with  regard  to  himself:  "  I  obtained 
mercy,  because  I  did  it  ignorantly,  in  unbelief"  (1  Tim.  i,  13); 
and  he  said  with  regard  to  his  brethren:  "  My  heart's  desire  and 
prayer  is  for  them,  that  they  may  be  saved"  (Rom.  x,  1).  He 
would  certainly  not  have  prayed  for  men  whom  he  knew  to  be 
foredoomed  reprobates. 

It  was  with  such  views  with  regard  to  God's  plan,  and  such 
feelings  with  regard  to  the  Jews,  that  Paul  wrote  these  chapters. 
But  he  wrote  them  with  deepest  grief  and  sorrow  of  heart.  He 
was  himself  a  Jew,  proud  of  the  mighty  traditions  of  his  people, 
and  of  their  holy  I'eligion  ;  he  loved  his  people  as  his  own  soul,  and 
would  sacrifice  his  life  to  save  them  from  rejecting  Christ  and 
froin  being  themselves  rejected  from  the  Church  for  their  unfaith. 
Yet  in  these  chapters  he  judicially  declared  their  rejection  from 
the  Church  of  the  fathers,  which  has  now  become  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Verse  3.  For  I  could  wish  that  I  myself  were  anath- 
ema from  the  Christ,  for  [in  the  place  of]  my  brethren, 
my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh. 

Two  critical  remarks:  1.  The  article  with  the  word  "the 
Chi-ist"  shows  that  the  apostle  uses  the  tei'm  here,  not  (as  usual  in 
the  Epistles)  as  a  proper  name,  but  as  an  official  designation, "  the 
Messiah,"  which  is  the  sense  that  appeals  to  the  Jews.*    2.  The 

-The  word  Christ  is  found  In  this  Epistle  slxty-slx  times  as  a  proper 
name  (sixty  times  without  the  article  nnd  six  times  more  with  the  article 
for  deflnitiveness);  but  only  twice  with  the  article  as  the  Jewish  official 
designation;— in  this  verse,  and  in  the  fifth  verse,  "  From  whom  is  the 
Messiah."    But  cf.  note  on  Rom.  vli,  4. 


286  EXPOSfTION. 

proposition,  inr^p,  in  the  phrase,  for  my  brethren,  must  be  taken 
logically  in  the  sense  of  "in  the  place  of,"  or  "  instead  of."  (Cf. 
Rom.  V,  7.)  Paul  here  thinks  of  himself,  not  as  being  made  an 
anathema  in  behalf  of,  or  for  the  beivfit  of,  his  brethren — that  is,  as  a 
sacrifice  or  expiation  (which  does  not  give  any  appropriate  sense) — 
but  only  as  a  substitute  for  them. 

In  order  to  know  to  what  doom  Paul  would  yield  liimself  in 
the  place  of  the  Jews,  we  must  first  inquire  to  wliat  doom  tliey 
were  themselves  exposed  ;  for  it  is  this  doom  only  that  he  would 
assume  in  their  stead.  It  has  been  too  rashly  taken  for  granted 
that  their  condemnation  was  to  eternal  damnation;  and  that  it 
was,  therefore,  eternal  damnation  to  which  Paul  would  devote 
himself  in  their  stead.  But  this  was  not  Paul's  concept  with  re- 
gard to  the  unbelieving  Jews. 

We  have  seen  that  Paul  never  taught  or  conceived  that 
the  Jews,  whether  eii  masse  or  individually,  were  doomed  to  be 
damned,  on  the  ground  of  unfaith  in  tlie  Messianic  promises,  or 
that  even  in  their  apostasy  they  were  beyond  the  immediate  reach 
and  the  ultimate  saving  power  of  the  gospel.  All  that  Paul  thought 
or  taught  in  regard  to  the  status  of  the  Jews  was,  that  they 
had  been  displaced,  en  masse,  from  being  a  theocratic  people ; 
and  that,  as  individual  Jews,  in  which  relation  alone  God  now 
regarded  them,  they,  by  reason  of  their  personal  unfaith  in  the 
Messianic  promises,  and  by  reason  of  their  rejection  of  Jesus  as 
the  Christ,  had  not  become  incorporated  spiritually  in  the  king- 
dom of  God  on  earth,  the  Church  of  Christ.  They  were  anathema 
from  the  Christ;  they  were  en  masse  counted  outside  of  the 
community,  and  individually  out  of  communion  with  the  Christian 
Church.  Notice  their  fall,  and  just  how  far  its  consequences 
i-eached.  The  common  people  of  the  Jews  had  at  first  heard 
Christ  gladly ;  and  were  almost  ready  for  a  profession  of  faith  in 
him;  but  misled  by  their  spiritual  guides,  they  came  to  look  upon 
him  with  suspicion,  and  renounced  him  and  his  teachings;  and 
even  followed  the  chief  priests,  who  pursued  him  to  the  death  as 
the  enemy  and  subverter  of  their  trusted  Judaism.  Yet  even  to 
the  last,  the  mass  of  the  people  (as  is  the  fact  with  regard  to  them 
at  the  present  day],  were  not  incorrigibly  wicked:  they  still 
believed  in  God  ;  they  still  worshiped  him  as  of  old  ;  they  still 
clung  to  the  Scriptures,  and  they  still  claimed  to  look  for  the 
promised  Messiah.  Amid  much  in  them  that  was  condemnable, 
there  was  still  much  that  was  commendable.    And  surely  not  all 


ROMANS  IX,  S.  287 

the  Jews  who  had  thus  been  carried  along  with  the  current  of  pop- 
ular prejudice,  and  who  rejected  Christ,  were  doomed  to  eternal 
damnation  for  their  unfaith.  During  all  Paul's  ministry,  and  later, 
tliere  continued  to  be  many  conversions  from  among  them  to 
Cliristianity,  until  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State  (A.  D.  70), 
and  the  utter  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  Church.  And  during  all 
the  centuries  since,  though  conversions  to  Christianity  have  been 
fewer,  they  have  never  ceased.  And,  further,  the  separation  of 
the  bulk  of  the  nation  from  Christ  is  not  final,  but  only  for  the 
limited  period  of  their  unfaith:  and  Paul  tells  us,  that  some  day 
the  veil  will  be  taken  from  their  hearts,  and  the  Jewish  people  will 
come  back  en  masse  to  Christ;  "and  so  all  Israel  as  a  people  will 
be  saved."     (Rom.  xi,  26.) 

These  last  words,  "  all  Israel  will  be  saved,"  can  have  no  other 
meaning  than  that  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  e)i  masse  to  mem- 
bership in  the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  Yet,  when  the  Jews 
shall  have  been  restored  to  membership  in  the  organic  Church,  it 
will  not  be,  as  it  was  not  of  old,  to  any  separate  nationality,  or  any 
theocratic  prominence,  or  any  specially  favorable  conditions ;  but 
they  will  come  into  the  Christian  Church,  indiscriminately,  on  a 
common  level  with  the  Gentiles.  This  was  already  foreshadowed 
to  Paul's  mind  by  the  absorption  into  the  Church  of  Christ  of  the 
many  thousand  individual  Jews  who  had  accepted  faith  in  Christ. 

The  question  of  the  meaning  of  Paul's  wish  turns  then  upon 
the  word  "  anathema."  The  Authorized  translates  it  by  the  word 
"accursed;"  that  is,  as  it  is  popularly  understood,  "eternally 
damned."  That  the  Greek  word  may  have  this  worst  sense  is 
doubtful  ;  but  it  properly  expresses  only  putting  under  ban,  or 
"separation"  (which  is  the  translation  given  here  in  the  margin 
of  the  Authorized);  that  is,  excommunication  from  the  Church. 
This  milder  sense  became  the  accepted  one  later  on,  in  both  the 
synagogue,  and  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  Revised  correctly 
transfers  the  word  "anathema."  "Anathema"  is  a  matter  of  eccle- 
siastical discipline,  exercised  by  man,  and  not  by  God  ;  and  can 
not  carry  eternal  consequences  (though,  doubtless,  ecclesiastical 
excommunication  for  cause  suggests  danger  of  hell-fire).  This  is 
the  sense  of  the  word  in  this  passage.  When  Paul  thinks  of 
anathema  in  connection  with  the  Jews,  the  utmost  that  he  has  in 
his  thought  is,  that  the  once  elect  people  are  now  ''separated" 
en  masse  from  the  Messiah — that  is,  from  the  Messianic  Church  of 
the  fathers,  in  which  they  and  he  gloried — and  in  fellowship  with 


288  EXPOSITION. 

which  was  the  normal  way  of  salvation  ;  and  he  thinks  of  their 
separation  as  disciplinary  only,  and  not  damnatory  or  eternal. 
Condemnation  different  from  this  Paul  never  dreamed  of  for  his 
bretliren,  the  Jews.  And  tliis  is  tlie  utmost  that  he  has  in  liis 
thought  in  regard  to  himself,  when  he  says,  "  I  could  wish  that  I 
were  myself  anathema  from  the  Christ  in  the  place  of  my  breth- 
ren." In  his  grief  over  their  unfaith  in  Messiah,  and  their  rejec- 
tion from  their  time-honored  position,  he  declares,  that  to  save 
them  to  the  Church  and  to  Christ,  he  would  fain,  if  so  it  could  be, 
devote  himself,  whom  they  hated,  to  excommunication  in  their 
stead.  The  man  who  had  five  times  been  expelled  from  the  syna- 
gogue, with  the  minor  excommunication,  ignominiously,  "  with 
forty  stripes  save  one,"  and,  so  far  as  Jewish  discii)line  could  com- 
pass it,  had  been  formally  "given  over  to  Satan,  that  he  might 
learn  not  to  blaspheme,"  felt  that  he  could  gladly  endure  this 
graver  and  final  excommunication  from  Messiah ;  that  is,  from  all 
ecclesiastical  privileges  (w'hether  in  synagogue  or  church),  in  their 
stead,  if,  by  this  sacrifice  and  ignominy,  he  could  save  them  to 
Christ  and  the  Church.  But  surely  Paul,  in  this  contemplated 
devotion  of  himself,  instead  of  his  brethren,  did  not  deem  or 
dream  that  it  included  his  own  personal  alienation  from  Christ, 
and  an  eternal  damnation.  Such  a  thought  was  utterly  foreign 
to  all  his  being.  He  has  just  said  in  his  triumphal  words  in  the 
last  chapter,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  nothing  will  separate  me  from 
the  love  of  God,  in  Christ  Jesus,  my  Lord"  (Rom.  viii,  38)  ;  and  he 
surely  does  not  now  straightway  unsay  this,  or  mean  that  "  I  could 
wish  to  be  damned  from  Christ  instead  of  my  brethren ;"  that  is, 
as  he  did  not  hold  that  his  brethren  were  condemned  to  damna- 
tion (which  is  not  the  meaning  of  anathema,  an  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline only),  so  he  could  not  think  of  himself  (the  above  quotation 
shows  it),  as  personally  alienated  from  "  Christ  Jesus,  his  Lord." 

But,  after  all,  though  the  wish  that  he  expressed  was  not  so 
dreadful  as  is  commonly  thought,  we  must  notice  that  the  form  of 
expression  which  he  used,  clearly  implied  that  he  did  not  really 
conceive  such  a  personal  substitution  of  himself  in  the  place  of  his 
brethren  to  be  within  the  possibilities,  whether  from  the  human, 
or  from  the  Divine  point  of  view.  Paul's  saying  was  but  the  imjjul- 
sive  expression  of  an  imaginary  case.  His  contingent  phraseology 
showed  that  he  did  not  himself  regard  it  as  possible.  The  saying 
"  I  could  wish,"  implied  the  condition  l/thi'  circuinatances  permitted; 
and  showed  that  he  did  not  expect  it.     He  merely  says  that  he 


ROMANS  IX.    4,  5.  289 

would  it  might  be  so,  knowing  at  the  same  time  that  it  could  not 
be  so. 

Verses  4,  5.  "Who  are  Israelites ;  whose  is  the  adop- 
tion, and  the  glory,  and  the  dispensations,  and  the  legis- 
lation, and  the  temple  service,  and  the  promises ;  "whose 
are  the  fathers,  and  from  whom  is  the  Christ,  as  concern- 
ing the  flesh,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever ;  Amen. 

The  name  Israel  was  given  to  Jacob  after  he  prevailed  in 
prayer.  "  Thy  name  shall  no  more  be  called  Jacob  [Supplanter], 
but  Israel  [Prince  of  God]."  (Gen.  xxxii,  28.)  This  name  of 
honor  became  the  corporate  name  preferred  by  the  nation,  as  a 
whole,  until  the  division  of  the  kingdom  under  Rehoboam,  when 
it  was  adopted  as  the  national  designation  by  the  northern  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes  ;  the  southern  kingdom  taking  tlie  name  Judah. 
During  the  captivity,  the  ten  tribes  disappeared  as  such  from 
history ;  though  many  Israelites  came  back  with  the  captives  from 
Judah.  Thenceforward  the  people  collectively  were  called  Jews. 
But  contemporaneously  with  this  later  national  designation,  the 
name  Israel  was  still  used,  though  now  with  a  higher  religious 
significance.  This  is  the  honorary  and  religious  title  which  Christ 
gives  to  Nathanael:  "Behold  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no 
guile."  (John  i,  47.)  It  is  the  complimentary  term  that  Paul 
here  employs  to  express  the  religious  dignity  of  his  brethren  ;  and 
which  further  on  he  uses  in  regard  to  himself,  "For  I  am  an  Israel- 
ite "  (Rom.  xi,  1)  ;  but  when  he  speaks  Of  himself,  not  as  a  Church- 
man, but  nationally,  in  secular  connections,  he  uses  the  other 
name,  "  I  am  a  Jew  of  Tarsus  "   (Acts  xxi,  39). 

In  a  former  passage  (Rom.  iii,  2),  Paul  named  a  single  point 
in  which  the  Jews  had  an  institutional,  but  not  a  moral  superiority 
over  the  Gentiles, — that  they  had  the  oracles  of  God  ;  but  here  he 
enumerates  eight  more  points  in  which  the  Israelites  [now  the 
complimentary  name],  surpassed  the  rest  of  the  world, — 1.  the 
adoption  ;  2.  the  glory  ;  3.  the  dispensations  ;  4.  the  legislation  ; 
5.  the  temple  service ;  6.  the  promises ;  7.  the  fathers  ;  and  8,  the 
descent  of  the  Christ  [Messiah].  These  points  are  all  of  an  exter- 
nal character,  and  named  the  franchises  that  belonged  to  the  Jews 
en  masse.     They  are  worthy  of  consideration  severally. 

1.  The  word  adoption,  or  "  sonship,"  is  used  to  express  the 
special  call  of  the  elect,  priestly  nation,  to  great  and  sacred  privi- 
leges with  God.  But  the  same  word  is  used  in  the  gospel  conception, 
19 


290  EXPOSITION. 

to  express  the  more  intimate  filial  relation  of  individual  believers. 
This  relation  was  sealed  to  their  consciousness  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  "  He  redeemed  them  that  were  under  the  Law,  that  we  may 
receive  the  adoption  of  sons ;  but  because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent 
forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father." 
(Gal.  iv,  5.)  [Notice  the  unconscious  confusion  of  the  pronouns, 
"  them,  we,  ye ;"  which  is  no  confusion  after  all,  seeing  that  in 
Paul's  thought,  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  now  all  one.] 

2.  The  word  glory  expresses,  probably,  what  the  Rabbins 
called  the  "  Shekinah,"  the  visible  sign  of  God's  presence,  upon 
occasion,  between  the  Cherubim,  above  the  mercy  seat.  It 
appeared  to  Moses,  and  to  the  high  priest  on  the  day  of  atone- 
ment, as  representatives  of  the  congregation  at  large.  The 
Shekinah  w^as  a  literal  vision,  not  figurative;  and  it  ceased  with 
the  destruction  of  the  first  temple.  But  Haggai,  at  the  building 
of  the  second  temple,  promised,  that  "the  glory  of  the  latter 
house  should  be  greater  than  the  glory  of  the  former."  This  is  to 
be  understood  figui-atively,  of  the  coming  of  Christ.  "  The  Desire 
of  all  nations  will  come;  and  I  will  fill  this  house  with  glory." 
(Hag.  ii,  7,9.) 

3.  The  word  dia6rjKai,  usually  translated  "  covenants" — that  is, 
a  compact,  or  contract,  between  God  and  man — is  better  trans- 
lated "  disposals,"  or  dispensations,  to  express  God's  sovereign 
arrangements  for  man.  The  divine  dispensations  began  with 
Adam,  the  first  man,  and  then  with  Noah,  the  second  head  of  the 
race  ;  but  the  dispensations  specially  noted  here,  are  those  vouch- 
safed successively  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  to  the 
Church  of  Israel.  These  gracious  dispensations,  expressing  God's 
purposes  and  plans,  were  renewed  upon  each  successive  occasion, 
with  growing  fullness  and  definiteness,  until  the  final  one  with 
regard  to  Christ.  Yet,  in  point  of  fact,  God  has  had  but  one  dis- 
pensation in  all  his  dealings  with  men ;  and  the  plural  number 
here  denotes  but  the  repeated  confirmations  of  his  one  gracious 
promise,  though  each  time  with  "more  grace,"  and  with  enlarged 
scope. 

4.  The  Legislation  means  especially  the  giving  of  the  Levit- 
ical  Law  on  Sinai.  Tliis  law  was  the  code  which  regulated  both 
Church  and  State;  and  which,  in  its  enduring  principles,  survives 
in  large  part,  in  the  legislation  of  all  the  nations  in  Ciiristendom. 
This  Sinaitic  Law  was  puV)lish('d  with  thundcrings  and  lightnings, 
in  the  sight  and  hearing  of  the  people  ;  so  that  all  the  people  that 


ROMANS  IX.    4,  5.  291 

were  in  the  camp,  trembled.  For  no  other  people  did  God  ever 
enact  law  with  such  displays  of  pomp,  and  majesty,  and  power. 
''  Did  ever  people  hear  the  voice  of  God  as  thou  hast  heard,  and 
live  ?"  (Deut.  iv,  33.)  This  is  sometimes  called  the  "  Mosaic  Law," 
as  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  Yet  from  Paul's  point  of  view,  we 
may  properly  include  in  his  word  "  legislation"  the  entire  body  of 
divinely  revealed  Law,  as  found  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

5.  The  temple  service  was  the  solemn  and  imposing  cere- 
monial worship  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Other  ancient  relig- 
ions had  showy  and  expensive  temples,  and  priesthoods,  and 
sacrifices  ;  but  there  was  no  system  of  worship  that  could  compare 
in  magnificence  and  significance  with  that  of  the  Jews.  The  Jew- 
ish religion  alone  had  the  supernatural  sanctions  that  made  their 
service  holy  and  revered  in  the  sight  of  the  worshipers.  Though 
their  temple  service  was  mainly  ritual  and  spectacular,  it  was 
often  interpenetrated  with  sincere  devotion  and  spiritual-minded- 
ness.  It  iinpressed  itself  upon  the  imagination  and  the  conscience 
of  the  worshipers,  just  as  the  pomps  and  vanities  of  Papal  Rome, 
and  of  other  sacerdotal  churches  imi)ress  themselves  upon  the 
plastic  superstitions  of  men, — possibly  in  both  cases  usefully  for 
unspiritual  people.  But  genuine  Christian  worship  rejects  these 
external  observances.  Christ  declared  that  the  true  worshiper 
does  not  need  forms  and  outside  helps:  "Believe  me,  the  hour 
Cometh,  and  now  is,  when  neither  in  Samaria,  nor  in  Jerusalem, 
shall  ye  worship  the  Father.  The  true  worshipers  will  worship  in 
spirit  and  in  truth."     (John  iv,  23.) 

6.  The  promises  were  God's  pledges  to  Israel  of  blessings 
both  temporal  and  spiritual, — the  former  of  the  land  of  Palestine 
as  a  possession,  and  all  worldly  prosperity ;  the  latter  of  spiritual 
prosperity,  especially  the  gift  of  Messiah.  All  their  religion  cul- 
minated in  this,  "  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch,  and 
he  shall  be  called  the  Lord  our  Eighteousness  "  (Jer.  xxiii,  5)  ; 
"  Of  the  increase  of  his  government,  there  shall  be  no  end  upon 
the  throne  of  David"  (Isa.  ix,  7).  Such  are  the  Messianic  proph- 
ecies, rich  and  explicit,  and  definite,  "  which  in  Christ  are  Yea, 
and  in  him  are  Amen ;"  and  which  (though  Israel  to  this  day  is 
blinded  to  their  sense),  are  fulfilled  in  no  other. 

7.  The  fathers  were  the  patriarchal  ancestors  of  Israel. 
Moses  expressly  limits  the  term  to  these,  "  Possess  the  land  which 
the  Lord  sware  to  your  fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  to 
give  to  them,  and  to  their  seed  after  them."     (Deut.  i,  8.)     But 


202  EXPOSITION. 

Jewish  usago  recognized  tlie  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  as  "  patriarchs" 
(Acts  vii,  8),  though  many  of  them  were  at  first  unworthy  men; 
and  David  also  bore  this  title  of  "  i)atriarch  "  (Acts  ii,  29)  ;  and  to 
all  these  men  the  Jews  looked  back,  not  only  as  fathers  of  the 
twelve  tribes,  but  in  thic  spiritual  sense,  as  "  fathers  in  Israel." 

8.  The  last  clause  in  this  verse  is  usually  and  correctly  trans- 
lated,  " and  from  whom  is  the  Christ,   as  concerning 

the  flesh,  "who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever;  Amen." 
Aside  from  dogmatic  considerations,  no  i-eader  of  this  Greek  sen- 
tence would  ever  think  of  any  other  punctuation,  or  translation, 
or  explanation.  The  Socinian  exegetes  place  a  period  at  the  word 
"flesh,"  and  translate  and  explain  the  next  words  as  a  doxology 
to  God:  "He  that  is  over  all,  God,  be  blessed  forever;  amen." 
This  is  possible  for  the  Greek,  though  in  view  of  the  connection, 
it  is  intolerably  abrupt  as  well  as  inconsecutive.  But  not  a  single 
one  of  the  Greek  fathei's,  or  of  the  Latin  fathers,  ever  felt  or 
mooted  any  exegetical  difficulty.  Both  grammatically  and  exe- 
getically,  the  words  are  applicable  to  Christ.  The  Scripture 
authorities  justify  this:  for  example,  John  says,  "The  Word  was 
God  "  (John  i,  1)  ;  Christ  said  of  himself,  "  I  and  the  Father  are 
one"  (John  x,  30)  ;  Thomas  said  to  him,  "My  Lord  and  my  God  " 
(John  XX,  28).  And  Paul  gives  Christ  Divine  attributes:  "All 
things  have  been  created  through  him,  and  to  him."  (Col.  i,  16.) 
The  literature  on  the  subject  of  this  verse  is  very  extensive ;  but 
there  would  have  been  no  debate,  and  no  literature,  as  there  is 
really  no  doubt,  if  men  had  not  a  dogmatic  and  unscriptural 
novelty  to  maintain. 

This  specification  is  the  last  and  highest  that  the  apostle  can 
name  among  the  prerogatives  of  the  Israelites.  It  was  an  unfading 
honor  to  them  that  the  Messiah  should  be  born  from  their  race  ; 
and  his  entire  lineage  is  twice  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  both 
for  verification  of  the  promises,  and  for  honor  to  his  ancestry. 
Yet  no  personal  advantage  or  benefit  accrued  to  his  race,  or  to  a 
single  member  of  his  family,. from  his  connection  with  them.  He 
was  a  Jeiv ;  but  in  a  large  and  better  sense,  he  was  man,  and  akin 
to  the  world  at  large.  He  showed  no  nepotism  during  his  life  ;  and 
at  his  death  he  sundered  all  family  ties,  and  thereafter  recognized 
only  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  common  race  of  man. 
It  is  not  even  probable  that  he  ever  met  his  mother  after  his 
resurrection.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that,  though  he  had 
"  brothers  "  and  "  sisters,"  these  had  no  prominence  because  they 


ROMANS  IX.    6,  7.  293 

belonged  to  him;  and  of  them  only  James  and  Jude  are  named 
as  having  a  place  in  the  Church;  and  the  entire  family  probably 
died  out  early.  The  last  kinsmen  of  Christ  named  in  history  or 
tradition  were  "  two  grandsons  of  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord," 
whom  Eusebius  mentions  (Hist.  Ill,  20),  as  poor  peasants.  Chris- 
tians, in  Judea,  surviving  till  the  reign  of  Trajan,  A.  D.  98. 

Verses  6,  7.  But  I  do  not  imply  such  a  thing-  as  that 
the  word  of  God  has  fallen  away.  For  not  all  those  who 
are  from  Israel  are  Israel :  nor  yet,  because  they  are  seed 
of  Abraham,  are  they  all  his  children ;  nay,  but  [it  has 
been  written],  In  Isaac  [only]  will  thy  seed  be  called. 
(Gen.  xxi,  12.) 

We  have  seen,  again  and  again,  the  inveterate  persuasion  of 
the  Jews  that  God  had  called  them,  as  descendants  of  Abraham, 
the  heirs  of  the  promises,  to  an  indefeasible  place  in  the  theocratic 
kingdom  here,  and  to  an  eternal  salvation  hereafter ;  and  that  these 
privileges  were  theirs,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  rest  of  the  world. 
These  views  Paul  now  proceeds  finally  to  refute.  He  has  shown 
that  not  only  the  Jewish  exclusiveness  has  no  basis  in  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  that,  contrariwise,  the  Gentiles  were  expressly  included 
from  the  first,  in  God's  eternal  provisions  for  the  world.  He  will 
show  further,  that  the  call  of  the  Gentiles,  with  its  two  phases  of 
citizenship  in  the  theocratic  kingdom,  and  of  membership  in  the 
organized  Church,  was  wholly  in  the  lines  of  God's  providential 
administration,  and  not  in  the  realm  of  his  spiritual  administration. 
These  things  were  provisional  and  temporal  only,  and  the  Jews 
enjoyed  them  en  masse,  by  virtue  of  their  descent  from  Abraham, 
and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  of  the  Messianic  promises.  But 
membership  in  the  spiritual  family  of  God,  with  its  religious 
experiences  here,  and  promise  of  eternal  life  hereafter,  was  con- 
tingent on  their  personal  faith,  and  was  extended  to  them  individ- 
ually, and  not  e7i  masse.  And  this  inner  call  and  religious  expe- 
rience was  open  to  the  Gentile  as  fully  as  to  the  Jew. 

Now  it  was  the  revocation  of  their  theocratic  call,  and  their 
rejection  from  communion  with  the  Church  of  Christ,  that  occa- 
sioned the  sorrow  wliich  the  apostle  expresses  in  the  second  verse 
of  this  chapter.  But  though  he  sorrows  over  the  downfall  of  his 
brethren,  he  yet  says,  in  verse  6,  "  I  do  not  imply  such  a  thing  as 
that  God's  promise  has  fallen  away."  The  privilege  of  spiritual 
life   is  still  theirs;   though  the  encouraging  opportunity  may  be 


204  EXPOSITION. 

witlidrawn.  And  so,  God's  i)roiiiisp,  which  is  Messianic  and  uni- 
versal in  its  trend,  and  not  particular  and  personal  to  tlie  Jews,  as 
they  thouglit,  remains  true  and  sure  to  any  one  that  has  faith;  it 
is  only  the  Jewish  interpretation  which  is  false  and  untenable. 

The  language  of  the  promise  to  Abraham,  renewed  and  en- 
larged seven  times,  was,  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between 
me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant ; 
and  I  will  give  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed,  all  the  land  of  Canaan  for 
an  everlasting  possession  ;  and  I  will  multiply  tliy  seed  as  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  as  the  stars  of  lieaven,  and  as  the  sand  which  is  upon 
the  seashore;  and  in  thy  seed  will  all  the  nations  [Gentiles]  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."     (Gen.  xvii,  7  ;  xxii,  17.) 

In  the  next  generation,  God  made  the  same  great  Messianic 
promise  to  Isaac:  "  I  will  bless  thee,  and  I  will  multiply  thy  seed 
as  the  stars  of  heaven ;  and  I  will  give  unto  thy  seed  all  tliese 
countries ;  and  in  thy  seed  will  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."     (Gen.  xxvi,  4.) 

In  the  third  generation,  God  renewed  the  Messianic  promise 
to  Jacob:  "To  thee  will  I  give  this  land,  and  to  thy  seed  ;  and  thy 
seed  shall  be  as  the  dust  of  the  eartli ;  and  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed 
will  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."    (Gen.  xxviii,  14.) 

God's  promise  was  not  concluded  in  this  earthly  sense,  nor 
restricted  to  the  earthly  seed.  All  spiritually-minded  Jews  must 
have  long  felt  that  the  promise  was  of  a  Messianic  tenor,  and  had 
its  true  fulfillment,  not  in  the  literal  Israel,  but  in  Abraham's 
spiritual  seed;  as  Paul  delared  to  the  Galatians:  "  Now  to  Abra- 
ham were  the  promises  spoken,  and  to  his  seed,  ...  as  it  is  said, 
'To  thy  seed'  (Ex.  xii,  40),  which  is  Christ"  (Gal.  iii,  16).  In 
quoting  these  reiterated  promises,  Paul  declares  that  "  tlie  Scrip- 
tures having  foreseen  that  God  would  justify  the  Gentiles  from 
faith,  preached  the  gospel  of  old  to  Abraham,  that  '  In  thee  will 
all  the  Gentiles  be  blessed.' "  (Gal.  iii,  8.)  This  was  not  an  after- 
thought of  Paul's,  but  it  was  the  original  and  intended  sense  of  the 
jjromises.  In  withholding  from  Israel  a  literal  fulfillment  of  the 
promise,  and  finally  in  revoking  their  call  and  election  as  the 
theocratic  people,  and  in  extending  the  call  (but  in  a  spiritual 
sense)  to  the  Gentile  world,  God  was  not  unjust  to  the  Jews,  who 
claimed  everything  for  themselves  on  the  ground  of  their  natural 
descent  from  Abraham  ;  and  he  was  not  untrue  to  the  Messianic 
promises,  but  only  showed  that  they  had  a  wider  application  to 
the  world  at  large. 


ROMANS  IX.    a,  7.  295 

Of  all  the  explicit  temporal  blessings  here  promised,  not  one 
has  ever  been  literally  fulfilled.  They  were  all  conditional;  and 
the  conditions  were  never  met  by  the  unfaithful  Jews.  ■■  And  the 
only  promise  that  is  valid  now,  or  was  valid  when  Paul  wrote,  is 
the  last,  and  the  most  important  one  of  all,  the  promise  of  Mes- 
siah, and  the  spiritual  blessings  to  the  Gentile  world  through  him. 
For  this  promise  was  fulfilled  to  the  Gentile  world  as  well  as  to 
Israel,  though  Israel  did  not  admit  it. 

In  the  passage  which  we  are  considering,  Paul  cites  the  case 
of  these  several  families;  and  shows  that  while  the  literal  terms 
of  the  promise,  as  first  spoken,  embraced,  in  each  instance,  all  of 
Abraham's  offspring,  yet  in  its  fulfillment  not  all  his  fleshly  seed 
were  heirs  of  the  promise ;  not  even  his  first  born  was  heir  by 
right  of  primogeniture,  but  only  such  of  the  children  as  God 
selected  on  the  basis  of  spiritual  or  supra-natural,  adaptedness  to 
his  purpose.  In  tlie  families  of  Abraham  and  of  Isaac,  God  indi- 
cated his  choice  by  naming,  expressly,  the  younger  sons  as  ances- 
tors of  the  theocratic  kingdom,  and  members  of  the  family  of 
faith.  In  the  family  of  Jacob,  he  made  no  outward  selection,  but 
let  all  the  twelve  sons  stand  as  nominal  members  of  the  theocratic 
kingdom;  but  he  counted  only  the  spiritually  minded  descendants 
of  Jacob  as  members  of  the  household  of  faith.  Tliat  is,  though 
all  Jews  belong  outwardly  to  the  theocratic  nation,  only  those 
that  have  the  inward  qualification  are  "  Israelites"  of  the  spiritual 
class.  And  so  Paul  says,  "  Not  all  those  who  are  from  Israel  [the 
natural  Jacob],  are  Israel  [that  is,  spiritual  Israelites]."  And  the 
point  which  Paul  makes  against  the  assumption  of  the  Jews,  is 
that,  as  God  made  an  election  within  the  families  of  Abraham  and 
Isaac,  so  now  he  makes  an  election  witliin  the  family  of  Jacob; 

*  Clearly  tho  covenant  with  the  Jews  was  not  "an  everlasting  cove- 
nant." unless  in  a  figurative  sense.  It  was  often  forsaken  by  the  Jews,  often 
repudiated  by  God,  and  finally  abrogated.  Clearly  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
not  "an  everlasting  possession."  It  never  came  into  full  possession  of  the 
Jews.  Time  and  again  they  were  subjugated  by  their  enemies,  or  e.xiled; 
and  now  they  have  no  possession  of  it;  and  never  will  have.  "Zionism" 
is  an  hallucination  The  combined  powers  of  Christendom  could  hardly 
compel  the  Jews  back  to  the  desolate  and  accursed  land  of  their  fathers. 
Clearly  the  Jews  have  never  been  as  the  dust  of  the  earth  for  multitude. 
And  so  with  other  temporal,  outward  promises.  The  Jews  of  Paul's  time 
must  have  seen  all  these  failures  of  a  literal  fulfillment;  and  It  was  only  in 
a  figurative  sense  that  they  could  hold  any  of  these  promises  to  be  true. 
But  if  they  interpret  them  In  this  jir/urafive  sense,  Faul,  in  his  Messianic 
argument  with  them,  has  them  at  his  mercy. 


206  EXPOSITION. 

that  is,  the  prosent  Jews.  The  promise  does  not  hold  for  all  Jews, 
literally.  Some  Jews,  like  their  uncles  Ishmael  and  Esau,  are  not 
counted  in  as  "  children."  Of  old  there  was  an  election  within 
the  limits  of  Abraham's  family;  and,  again,  within  the  limits  of 
Isaac's  family  ;  and  even  tliis  elc!Ction  was  not  absolute,  but  con- 
ditioned ;  so,  Paul  argues,  there  is  an  election  among  the  Jews, 
with  whom  he  is  now  contending.  The  promise  came,  in  unquali- 
fied terms,  "  to  Abraham  and  his  seed;"  yet  subsequently  God 
showed  that  it  was  not  to  all  the  seed,  not  to  Ishmael  the  first  born 
(whom  Abraham  preferred),  nor  to  the  six  sons  of  Keturah ;  but 
only  to  Isaac,  the  second  born,  "the  son  of  promise;"  as  it  was 
written,  "  God  said  to  Abraham,  Let  it  not  grieve  thee  because  of 
Ishmael;  for  in /saoc  [not  in  Ishmael]  will  thy  seed  be  called." 
(Gen.  xxi,  12.)  And  thus,  just  as  of  old,  some  of  Abraliam's  seed, 
Ishmael  and  Esau,  were  rejected  from  the  theocratic  kingdom,  so, 
the  apostle  argues,  some  Jews  now  may  be  rejected,  with  all  defer- 
ence to  the  promise  ;  nay,  in  fact,  all  Jews  are  so  rejected.  They 
reject  Messiah  ;  Messiah  rejects  them. 

Verses  8,  9.  That  is,  these,  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
are  not  [theocratic!  children  of  God;  nay,  but  the  children 
of  the  promise  are  reckoned  for  seed.  For  of  promise  was 
this  word :  According  to  this  season  I  will  come,  and 
Sarah  Inot  Hagar],  will  have  a  son.     (Gen.  xxv,  21.) 

These  verses  are  not  an  advanced  step  in  the  discussion,  but 
only  epexegetic  of  the  saying  in  the  seventh  verse,  "/n  Isaac  [not 
Ishmael),  will  thy  seed  be  called."  Paul  holds  that  the  mere 
natural  descent  from  Abraham  counts  for  nothing  in  the  way  of 
inheriting  the  promise.  The  seven  sons  of  Abraliam  were  born  of 
the  flesh;  and  do  not  inherit  "sonship"  with  God.  They  were 
not  called  even  to  a  subordinate  citizenship  in  the  theocratic  king- 
dom of  which  Isaac  was  the  head.  But  the  other  seven  might, 
equally  with  Isaac,  have  had  a  place  as  members  of  God's  spiritual 
family.  The  second  son,  Isaac,  was  born  in  the  line  of  the  special 
Messianic  promise ;  and  he  and  his  seed  were  counted  as  the  only 
heirs.  As  we  have  seen,  Paul  cites  this  historic  case  of  Isaac,  to 
ai)ply  the  principle  involved  to  the  Jews  of  his  own  day.  He 
declares  that  not  all  those  whose  lineage  was  from  Abraham  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  were,  on  that  ground,  children  of  the  promise, 
elect  and  called  to  the  national  inheritance.  But  the  Messianic 
promise  looked,  from  the  first,  not  to  a  literal  descent  from  Abra- 


ROMANS  IX.    10-13.  297 

ham,  but  to  a  different  qualification  for  a  yet  richer  inheritance 
with  God.  It  looked  to  the  inward,  spiritual  qualification  of  per- 
sonal faith  in  Messiah,  and  this*  qualification  may  be  found  in 
Gentiles  as  well  as  in  Jews ;  as  Paul  says  to  the  Galatians,  "  If  ye 
[Gentiles]  are  Christ's,  then  ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise"  (Gal.  iii,  29)  ;  and  as  John  the  Baptist 
said  to  the  Jews,  "  Think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  We  Iiave 
Abraham  as  father;  for  I  say  to  you,  that  God  is  able  from  these 
stones  [Gentiles],  to  raise  up  children  to  Abraham"   (Matt,  iii,  9). 

Verses  10-13.  But  not  in  that  instance  only  [was  there 
an  election]  ;  nay,  but  also  Rebecca  having-  conceived  from 
one  husband,  Isaac,  our  father  (for  the  children  not  yet 
having  been  born,  nor  yet  having  practiced  anything  good 
or  bad,  in  order  that  God's  plan  of  old,  by  way  of  election, 
may  remain,  not  from  works,  nay,  but  from  |  the  sole  will 
of]  him  that  calls);  it  was  said  to  her,  that  The  elder  will 
serve  the  younger  (Gen.  xxv,  21),  according  as  it  has  been 
written,  Jacob  I  loved,' but  Esau  I  hated  (Mai.  i,  2). 

The  sentence  is  anacoluthic,  the  result  (as  so  often  in  Paul's 
style)  of  his  habit  of  dictating  liis  letters.  But  the  sense  is  clear, 
and  we  need  not  stumble  over  the  construction.  The  word  Re- 
becca is  pendent,  and  the  reference  to  her  is  resumed  in  the  twelfth 
verse,  which  sliould  be  read  in  connection  with  the  tenth.  The 
eleventh  verse  is  parenthetic,  as  in  the  Authorized.  The  Revised 
evades  the  difficulty,  and  leaves  the  connection  of  the  conjunction, 
'iva,  in  order  that,  in  tlie  eleventh  verse,  in  doubt.  But  this  word 
connects  back  to  tlie  previous  clause,  to  show  that  God's  plan  in 
his  providential  election  of  men  still  holds  good,  not  as  depending 
upon  birth  or  works,  as  the  Jews  thought,  but  on  God's  sovereign 
will.  The  apostle's  argument  here  is  that,  as  God,  in  this  yet 
stronger  case  of  Esau  and  Jacob,  of  his  sole  will,  yet  for  cause, 
elected  the  younger,  and  made  him  the  theocratic  nation,  without 
injustice  to  the  elder,  so  he  may  now,  for  cause,  elect  the  Gentiles 
without  injustice  to  the  Jews. 

These  three  points  need  discussion : 

1.  The  parentage  of  Rebecca's  twin  sons. 

2.  The  conditions  named  in  the  eleventh  verse. 

3.  The  personal  relations  of  Esau  and  Jacob  to  each  other, 
and  their  relations  to  God's  government. 

1.  Paul  in  the  seventh  verse  cited  the  theocratic  election  of 


208  EXPOSTTIOX. 

IsHiic  over  Ishmael  to  show  tlial  (rod  did  not  count  all  born  from 
Abraham  as  born  ti)  {'itizcnship  in  tlic  tlicocratic  kingdom  and  to 
outward  mombcrshii)  in  tlu>  Cluircli  of  Crod.  God  as  a  sovereign 
elects  among  men,  as  he  will,  to  providential  franchises.  But  acav- 
iler  might  object  that,  in  the  case  of  these  two  sons,  God  elected 
the  younger  because  he  was  the  son  of  the  free  woman.  But  in  the 
verses  before  us  Paul  shows  that  the  objection  does  not  lie  ;  for, 
first,  neither  God  nor  Abraiiam  recognized  the  bar  sinister  in 
Ishmael's  scutcheon  as  a  bar  against  the  election  of  the  son  of  the 
slave  woman  ;  and,  secondly,  the  apostle  now  cites  a  similar  elec- 
tion of  a  younger  son  in  preference  to  an  older  son,  but  in  the 
more  decisive  circumstance  that  both  boys  liad  the  same  father 
and  the  same  mother;  and,  tiiirdly,  he  declares  that  the  election 
of  Jacob  and  the  non-election  of  Esau  were  fixed  and  announced 
to  the  mother  before  their  birth. 

2.  This  election  of  Jacob  and  non-election  of  Esau  before  their 
birth  were,  therefore,  not  the  result  of  their  having  done  any- 
thing good  or  bad,  but  wholly  from  God's  sovereign  will,  for  cause. 
Accordingly  Paul  says  that  in  the  case  of  these  twins  God's  plan 
of  old,  of  electing  to  providential  franchises  whomsoever  he  would, 
still  remained  operative,  not  from  works  (as  the  Jews  thought 
with  regard  to  themselves),  but  solely  from  the  sovereign  act  of 
God,  who  called  them  as  he  would. 

This  perilous  word  sovereign,  which  the  commentaries  habitu- 
ally use  in  this  connection  (but  which  Paul  never  uses),  I  deliber- 
ately accept;  but  certainly  not  in  a  Calvinistic  or  fatalistic  sense. 
It  does  not  mean,  as  sometimes  understood,  that  God's  election 
was  arbitrary  or  capricious,  or  even  mysterious;  but  simjily  that 
it  was  authoritative  and  final,  but,  of  course,  equitable  and  reason- 
able, and  adapted  to  the  desired  end  ;  and  it  was  so  wise  and  so 
level  to  our  compi-ehension  that  we  can  judge  of  it  correctly.  God 
chose  Isaac  over  Ishmael  and  Jacob  over  Esau,  not  from  caprice 
or  favoritism — for  all  four  were  of  Abrahamic  descent,  equally  his 
children,  equally  dear  to  him — but  with  an  infallible  judgment 
concerning  their  individual  adaptability  to  religious  functions. 
How  wholly  unfitted,  even  from  our  standpoint,  Ishmael  and  Esau 
were  for  such  a  mission,  and  for  the  progenitors  of  a  theocratic 
people,  their  subsequent  history  showed.  In  the  case  of  Esau  and 
Jacob,  their  different  temperaments  and  bents  fitted  them  for  dif- 
ferent spheres  in  life.  "Esau  was  a  cunning  hunter,  a  man  of  the 
field;    and  Jacob  was  a  quiet  man,  dwelling  in  tents."     (Gen. 


ROMANS  IX.    10-13.  299 

XXV,  27.)  Esau  was  a  man  of  affairs,  and  was  characteristically 
better  fitted  for  a  life  of  outward  activity  and  enterprise.  Jacob 
was  contemplative,  introspective  ;  he  had  a  greater  capacity  for 
spiritual  things.  Both  careers  were  equally  worthy ;  but  they 
were  different;  and  God  appropriately  chose  Jacob  as  the  father 
of  the  theocratic  nation.  The  principle  of  God's  choice  in  the 
world  is  expressed  in  his  words  to  Samuel:  "  I  have  rejected  Eliab 
[David's  oldest  brother];  for  man  looks  on  the  outward  appear- 
ance ;  but  Jeliovah  looks  on  the  heart."     (1  Sam.  xvi,  7.) 

But  what  is  of  still  more  moment, — we  must  recollect  that 
God's  sovereignty  over  men  and  their  surroundings  is  always  in 
the  sphere  of  providential,  temporal  things,  and  never,  as  Calvin- 
ism teaches,  in  the  sphere  of  spiritual  and  eternal  things.  Within 
the  limitations  of  his  providences,  God  is  absolutely  sovereign,  the 
sole  legislator,  tlie  sole  judge,  the  sole  executive,  uncontrolled  by 
any  of  his  creatures.  As  creator  and  ruler  of  men,  and  of  the 
material  world,  he  casts  our  lots  as  he  sees  best;  never  capri- 
ciously, but  always  looking  to  our  general  interest  and  our  indi- 
vidual rights  ;  and  always  with  needed  help  and  with  fair  treatment. 
He  does  not  deal  with  us,  as  a  chessplayer  may  arbitrarily  shift 
the  chessmen,  as  make-weights  on  the  figured  board  ;  or,  still  more 
arbitrarily,  as  a  dice  player  may  cast  the  dice  at  random  on  the 
table.  But  he  considerately  and  equitably  marks  out,  for  every 
separate  soul,  the  appointed  seasons  and  the  bounds  of  our  habita- 
tions, expressly  "  that  xoe  should  seek  God,  if,  then,  we  inay  feel 
after  him,  and  find  him  ;  though  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us." 
(Acts  xvii.  26.) 

True,  God's  providence  sometimes  seems  to  have  a  hard  side. 
To  every  scheme  of  government,  divine  as  well  as  human,  we  must 
concede  something:  the  material  conditions  of  time  and  place  can 
not,  in  the  nature  of  things,  fall  to  all  men  exactly  alike.  Dog- 
berry says,  "  If  two  men  ride  of  a  horse,  one  must  ride  behind." 
("  Much  Ado  About  Nothing,"  iii,  5.)*  Of  two  brothers,  both  can 
not  be  first  born.  And  so  we  may  not  always  understand,  or  be  able 
to  explain  to  everybody's  present  satisfaction,  God's  providential 


*  And  Pope  says: 

"Order  Is  heaven's  first  law;  and,  this  confessed. 
Some  are.  and  must  be.  greater  than  the  rest. 
More  rich,  more  wise;  but,  who  Infers  from  hence 
That  such  are  happier,  shocks  all  common  sense." 

"  Essay  on  Man,"  IV,  1, 


300  EXPOSITION. 

arrangement  of  men's  times,  and  habitations,  and  circumstances ; 
and  some  caviler  will  be  sure  to  say  [as  the  Jew  in  the  twentieth 
versel,  "Why  didst  thou  make  [appoint]  me  thus?"  But  con- 
siderate men  will  defer  to  God's  providences  as,  on  the  whole, 
gracious,  and  wise,  and  the  best  possible.  Whatever  in  God's 
providences  now  seems  dark  and  unequal,  or  even  inequitable,  is 
only  transient,  and  will,  in  the  long  run,  be  rectified  and  equal- 
ized, and  clarified.  God's  ledger  will  be  balanced,  and  his  ways 
justified  to  men,  if  not  here  and  now,  in  the  infinite  future. 
"  Behind  a  frowning  providence  he  hides  a  smiling  face." 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  sphere  of  his 
providential  administration  ;  but  in  the  higher  and  more  moment- 
ous department  of  spiritual  life,  and  character,  and  eternal 
destiny,  God's  sovereignty  has  no  place.  These  two  spheres  of 
God's  working,  the  sphere  of  his  providence,  and  the  sphere  of  his 
grace,  can  not  be  confounded  with  each  other.  And  it  is  only  of 
God's  working  in  the  sphere  of  his  providence,  which  is  temporal, 
and  sensible,  and  local,  that  Paul  here  S])eaks.  The  whole  Calvin- 
istic  concept  of  God's  sovereignty  in  the  spiritual  realm,  and  of 
an  absolute  decree  of  the  souls  of  men,  lying  supine  and  power- 
less in  his  hands,  to  eternal  weal  or  woe,  is  utterly  alien  to  the 
gospel  scheme,  and,  of  course,  outside  of  the  apostle's  discussion 
in  this  Epistle.  God's  government  in  the  spiritual  life  of  men 
must  be  understood,  not  as  meaning  control  over  the  destinies  of 
men,  but  as  only  another  name  for  divine  efficiency  co-operating 
with  men's  sovereign  volition.  It  is  the  divine  side  of  the  Pauline 
synergism.  Man,  under  God,  is  sovereign  over  his  own  spiritual 
concerns.  The  human  will  is  as  free  as  God's  will ;  and  is  subject 
to  God  only  through  moral  influences,  and  not  by  an  arbitrary 
and  necessitarian  sway.  Though  God  is  creator,  and  legislator, 
and  judge,  he  negotiates  with  man  as  his  equal  in  the  forum  of 
conscience,  and  of  morals,  and  free  choice.  Such  is  the  awful 
power  and  responsibility  over  his  own  destiny,  that  God  remits  to 
man's  free  will. 

3.  The  announcement  to  Rebecca,  that  "  The  elder  will  serve 
the  younger"  (Gen.  xxv,  23),  is  expressly  declared  to  have  been  in 
the  line  of  God's  world-plan  of  old,  by  which  his  election  of  men, 
and  their  providential  assignment  to  place  in  the  world,  does  not 
result  from  their  works,  but  from  God's  own  unappealable  will. 
The  election  of  Jacob  to  the  theocratic  place,  and  to  a  higher 
national  rank  than  Esau's,  and  the  non-election  of  Esau,  and  his 


ROMANS  IX.    10-13.  301 

inferior  national  rank  (which  is  the  sole  thing  that  the  apostle  is 
here  describing),  was,  as  is  always  the  fact  in  God's  administration 
in  this  world,  wholly  in  the  sphere  of  his  temporal  providences, 
and  not  in  the  sphere  of  spiritual  predestination  ;  and  it  did  not 
carry  with  it  either  the  personal  salvation  of  Jacob,  or  the  personal 
reprobation  of  Esau. 

Paul,  by  his  quotation  in  this  verse,  makes  the  point  against 
the  Jews,  as  we  saw  also  in  the  seventh  verse,  that  God  elected 
only  a  part  among  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  He  elected  Isaac 
over  Ishmael,  Jacob  over  Esau.  But  notice  ;  the  election  of  Isaac 
over  Ishmael,  and  of  Jacob  over  Esau  was  in  the  line  of  his  provi- 
dential government,  and  for  cause;  and  it  was  not,  as  the  Jews 
thought,  and  as  Calvin  thought,  an  election  to  salvation,  or  even 
to  inward  Church  membership.  At  the  most  it  was  theocratic,  not 
spiritual ;  at  the  most  it  made  Isaac  and  Jacob  rather  than  Ishmael 
and  Esau  the  head  of  the  elect  nation ;  but  it  did  not  constitute 
their  posterity,  the  Jews,  the  exclusive  members  of  the  Church, 
and  heirs  of  salvation.  Ishmael  and  Esau  were  circumcised  men, 
consecrated  to  God;  and  they  feared  God,  and  were  members  of 
his  family,  and  were  as  salvable,  and  as  probably  saved,  as  the 
elect  Isaac  and  Jacob. 

But  while  Paul  doubtless  had  this  thought  of  the  theocratic 
election  of  Jacob  in  his  mind,  he  did  not  in  this  passage,  say  it  in 
so  many  words,  or  at  all.  Not  only  in  his  words  is  there  no  allu- 
sion to  the  salvation  of  Jacob,  the  damnation  of  Esau,  there  is  no 
allusion,  even,  to  the  theocratic  election  of  one  brother  over  the 
other.  The  two  sentences  which  Paul  quotes,  one  from  Genesis, 
and  one  from  Malachi,  do  not  declare  the  theocratic  preferment  of 
Jacob  (which,  however,  would  still  lie  in  the  line  of  God's  provi- 
dences, and  not  involve  eternal  interests)  ;  but  they  simply  declare 
his  coming  national  prominence  over  Esau.  And  this  is  all  that 
the  apostle's  argument  with  the  Jews  demands.  He  wishes  only 
to  show  them  that  God  holds  to  his  fixed  plan  of  election,  or 
providential  choice,  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  and  turns  the 
scales  as  he  wills  (of  course,  for  cause) ;  and  that  he  is  doing  this 
now  with  the  Jews. 

This  is  really  all  that  is  found  in  the  words,  or  in  the  meaning 
of  the  quotation  before  us,  The  elder  will  serve  the  younger; 
and  this  meaning  of  the  saying  from  Genesis,  Paul  says  is  confirmed 
by  the  similar  saying  which  he  is  able  to  quote  from  Malachi, 
Jacob  I  loved,  but  Esau  I  hated,   a  saying  which  must  be 


302  EXPOSITION. 

explained  in  the  same  line-^that  of  the  national  standing  of  the 
two  brotluTS.  These  names,  "Jacob"  and  "Esau,"  are  used  by 
Malaclii,  not  as  tlie  personal  names  of  the  two  men,  but  as 
eponyms,  historical  designations  of  the  two  races  sprung  from 
them.  The  name  Jacob  is  very  frequent  in  the  sense  of  Israel,  the 
people  of  Israel,  tlie  Jews;  and  the  name  Esau,  though  not  as  fre- 
quent as  the  other  name,  is  here  just  as  clearly  in  the  sense  of 
Edom,  the  Edomites.  Long  before  the  times  of  Malachi,  Moses 
had  said,  "  TJiese  are  the  generations  of  Esau  :  the  same  is  Edom." 
(Gen.  xxxvi,  1.)  Both  sayings,  the  one  from  Genesis,  and  the  one 
from  Malachi,  have  to  do  only  with  God's  providential  allotment 
of  the  habitations,  and  secular  history  of  the  twin  brothers;  or, 
rather,  of  tlieir  descendants;  and  not  at  all  with  regard  to  their 
personal  character,  or  their  eternal  destinies.  But  as  these  say- 
ings, and  especially  the  one  from  Malachi,  have  received  a  sinister 
interpretation  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  predestination  of 
some  men  to  salvation,  and  of  all  the  rest  to  damnation  (a  doctrine 
which  has  no  standing  here,  or  anywhere  else  in  the  Bible)  ;  and  as 
the  saying  in  jMalachi  casts  its  lurid  shadow  back  on  the  other  say- 
ing (to  which,  however,  Paul  intended  it  to  be  only  an  historical 
confirmation,  and  not  a  doctrinal  interpretation),  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  examine  both  sayings  at  large. 

The  clause  which  Paul  quotes  from  the  announcement  to  Re- 
becca about  her  unborn  children  is  possibly  capable  of  being  mis- 
understood, if  taken  apart  from  its  connections;  but  the  passage, 
taken  as  a  whole,  makes  the  meaning  of  the  excerpted  words  clear 
beyond  dispute,  almost  beyond  perversion:  "And  Jehovah  said 
to  her, 

"  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb, 

"  And  two  peoples  will  be  separated  from  thy  bowels: 
"  And  the  one  people  will  be  stronger  than  the  other  people, 
"And   the  elder  1  people  |   will  serve  the  younger."      (Gen. 
XXV,  23.) 

In  the  same  way  we  must  take  the  passage  in  Malachi  as  a 
whole,  and  not  the  single  clause  apart  from  its  connections.  The 
entire  pai-agraph  goes  together;  and  it  also,  thus  taken,  makes  the 
meaning  of  the  excerpted  words  clear  beyond  dispute,  almost  be- 
yond perversion.  It  is  clear  that  they  are  spoken,  not  of  the  two 
persons,  Jacob  and  Esau,  but  of  the  two  nations  descended  from 
them.  The  saying  in  Genesis  does  not  define  the  personal  rela- 
tions of  the  brothers  during  their  life    much  less  their  spiritual 


ROMANS  IX.    lO-lS.  303 

condition  or  opportunity  for  tiiis  life  or  the  next;  but  it  means 
simply  this,  that  in  God's  administrative  forecast  for  the  two 
brotliers  he  promised  a  national  superiority  to  the  descendants  of 
Jacob,  the  younger,  over  the  descendants  of  Esau,  the  elder.  That 
this  is  the  sole  meaning  is  further  shovs'n  by  the  tenor  of  the 
blessings  whicli  Isaac  pronounced  on  his  two  sons,  blessings  differ- 
ing from  each  other  in  compass,  but  of  the  same  secular  and 
national  character.  (Gen.  xxvii,  28-40.)  And  it  must  be  clear 
from  these  sayings,  and  from  the  entire  subsequent  history  of 
these  brothers,  that  the  preferment  of  Jacob  over  Esau  was  not 
intended  to  affect,  and  certainly  did  not  affect,  tlieir  personal  re- 
lations or  the  family  right  of  primogeniture,  but  only  looked  for- 
ward to  the  comparative  status  of  tlieir  several  posterities,  when 
grown  to  be  nations,  at  a  future  day.  The  natural  rights  of  the 
two  brothers  remained  undisturbed,  except  by  family  jealousy ; 
and  the  birthright  remained  Esau's  (as  Jacob  himself  recognized 
by  his  foolish  and  futile  attempt  to  buy  it).  Their  case  was  the 
same  as  in  the  previous  generation  with  the  two  brothers,  Ishmael 
and  Isaac ;  and  as  was  the  case  afterwards  in  the  precisely  similar 
instance  of  Joseph's  two  sons,  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  ;  and  as  was 
the  case  with  the  sons  of  Jesse.  David,  the  youngest,  was  chosen 
king  over  all  his  seven  brothers.  (1  Sam.  xvi,  6-13.)  But  this  did 
not  give  David  the  rights  of  primogeniture.  Did  not  the  words  of 
Jacob,  when  he  blessed  Ephraim,  bitterly  recall  the  circumstances 
of  the  prophecy  about  himself  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  before, 
and  his  own  unfraternal  attempt  to  supplant  his  older  brother  ? — 
"  Manasseh  will  become  a  people,  and  will  be  great ;  but  truly  his 
younger  brother  will  be  greater  than  he,  and  his  seed  will  become 
a  multitude  of  nations."     (Gen.  xlviii,  19.) 

Esau  the  hunter  never  served  Jacob  the  shepherd — never 
"  served"  him  personally  in  any  sense  of  that  word.  It  was  only 
the  distant  posterity  of  Esau  that  served  the  posterity  of  Jacob. 
Twenty  years  after  the  brothers  had  parted  in  anger  they  met  in 
kindness  ;  and  Jacob  offered  to  Esau  the  usual  tokens  of  an  inferior 
to  a  superior,  and  called  himself  servant  and  Esau  lord:  "These 
droves  are  thy  servant  Jacob's:  they  are  a  present  to  my  lord 
Esau."  (Gen.  xxxii,  18.)  That  the  predominance  of  Jacob  over 
Esau  was  not  at  all  spiritual,  and  was  not  even  personal  and  im- 
mediate, but  only  in  their  remote  posterities,  grown  to  be  "  nations 
and  peoples,"  is  clear,  not  only  from  the  original  announcement  to 
Rebecca  (which  can  have  no  other  meaning),  but  from  the  words 


304  EXPOSITION. 

of  their  father,  Isaac.  To  Jacob  he  said,  "  Let  peoples  serve  thee, 
and  nations  bow  down  to  tliee  ;"  and  to  Esau  he  said,  "  Tliou  wilt 
serve  thy  brotlu-r,  and  it  will  come  to  i)ass,  when  thou  shalt  rebel, 
that  thou  wilt  break  his  yoke  from  off  thy  neck."  (Gen.  xxvii, 
29,40.)  Both  parts  of  this  prophecy  were  literally  fulfilled:  the 
first  part  ("Thou  wilt  serve  thy  brother")  not  until  seven  cen- 
turies afterwards  (B.  C.  1040),  when  Edom  (the  country  and  the 
people  of  Esau)  was  conquered  for  the  first  time  by  David:  "And 
all  they  of  Edom  became  David's  servants"  (2  Sam.  viii,  14)  ;  and 
the  second  part  ("Thou  wilt  break  his  yoke  from  off  thy  neck") 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  still  later  (B.  C.  885),  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoram:  "In  his  days  Edom  revolted  from  Judah,  and  made  a 
king  over  themselves"  (2  Kings,  viii,  20). 

But  the  relations,  not  of  Jacob  and  Esau  personally,  but  of  the 
two  nations,  with  each  other,  with  their  varying  fortunes,  are 
shown  yet  further,  in  the  Bible  history,  down  to  the  days  of 
Malachi,  the  last  of  the  prophets  (B.  C.  397),  and  after  him  in  the 
narrative  of  Josephus.  Two  centuries  before  Malachi,  all  Judah 
and  all  Edom  had  been  wasted  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  carried 
into  captivity  to  Babylon.  (B.  C.  593.  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  20.)  Sixty 
or  more  years  later,  the  Israelites,  under  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
came  back  from  captivity ;  while  Edom  remained  captive  and 
their  country  desolate.  Jeremiah  gives  us  a  vivid  picture  of  the 
desolation  of  Edom,  during  those  centuries.  (Jer.  xlix,  7-22.)  Yet 
the  Israelites,  too,  were  in  a  wretched  state.  Though  they  were 
restored  to  their  land,  they  were  few  and  feeble ;  and  in  their  ill 
lot  they  murmured  that  God  had  dealt  hardly  with  them.  But, 
bad  as  their  condition  was,  INIalachi  contrasts  it  favorably  with  the 
far  worse  condition  of  their  Edomite  kinsmen.  "  Do  ye  ask,"  says 
the  prophet,  "  Wherein  has  Jehovah  loved  us  ?  Thus  says  Jehovah, 
Was  not  Edom  Jacob's  brother  ?  yet  I  loved  Jacob,  but  I  hated  Esau, 
and  laid  his  heritage  waste.  .  .  .  Edom  says,  We  will  return,  and 
build  the  desolate  places.  Thus  says  Jehovah,  They  will  build, 
but  1  will  throw  down  ;  and  men  will  call  them  The  people  against 
whom  Jehovah  has  indignation  forever."  (Mai.  i,  2-4.)  This  is  the 
famous  saying,  which,  taken  out  of  its  connection,  Calvinism 
builds  into  the  dread  dogma  of  an  eternal  decree  of  Jacob  to  sal- 
vation, and  of  Esau  to  damnation  ;  and  after  their  type,  of  count- 
less saints  and  of  countless  rejirobates.  But  as  the  woi-ds  spoken 
to  Rebecca  have  respect  only  to  Jacob's  secular  superiority,  and 
Esau's  secular  inferiority,  and  as  they  can  not  be  made  to  allude,  in 


HOMANS  IX.    10-13.  305 

any  way  whatever,  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  destinies  of  the  two 
brothers,  so,  the  words  of  Malaehi,  spoken  fifteen  hundred  years 
later,  with  the  same  significance,  but  only  with  regard  to  the 
posterities  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  can  not  look  back  to  Rebecca's  ciiil- 
dren,  and  declare  wliat  was  God's  feelings  toward  them.  Indeed, 
the  prophet's  words  do  not  even  allude  to  the  theocratic  election  of 
Jacob,  and  the  non-election  of  Esau;  which  (though  these  things 
were  true  in  themselves),  were  not  involved  in  either  saying.  And 
so  far  are  these  words,  or  any  words  in  the  Bible,  from  expressing 
that  Esau  and  tlie  Edomites  were  damned,  or  damnable,  because 
they  were  not  included  in  the  theocratic  election,  it  must,  contrari- 
wise, be  remembered,  that  the  command  of  Moses  expressly  pro- 
vided that  all  Edomites,  as  descendants  of  Abraham,  should  be 
permitted  fully  and  freely,  whenever  tliey  themselves  chose  to 
become  united  by  circumcision  with  the  elect  nation,  and  to  enter 
the  congregation  of  the  outward  Israel,  and  to  come  into  com- 
munion with  the  spiritual  Israel:  "Thou  shalt  not  abhor  an 
Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother.  The  children  that  are  born  unto 
them  shall  enter  the  congregation  of  Jehovah,  in  their  third  gen- 
eration." (Deut.  xxiii,  7.)  And  this  actually  happened  to  Esau, 
or  Edom.  In  B.  C.  129,  John  Hyrcanus,  high  priest  and  ruler  of 
the  Jews,  conquered  Edom  as  it  had  never  been  conquered  before, 
even  by  David,  and  compelled  the  sons  of  Esau  to  be  circumcised, 
and  to  become  Jews.  From  that  date,  the  national  separateness 
and  estrangement  to  Israel  ceased;  and  one  of  themselves,  Herod 
the  Great,  arose  even  to  be  king  of  Judea.  Next  to  Solomon,  he 
was  the  greatest,  the  most  magnificent,  as  he  was  the  worst 
monarch  the  Jews  ever  had.  His  reign  lasted  forty  years,  and 
at  its  close  Christ  was  born,  whose  kingdom  knows  no  differ- 
ence among  men.  Esau  liad  ceased,  in  both  senses,  religiously 
and  nationally,  to  be  servant  to  Jacob.  The  Edomites  became 
Jews  as  much  as  any  proselytes ;  so  that  no  genealogist  can 
now  tell  what  proportion  of  so-called  Jewish  blood  is  not  really 
Edomite. 

But  the  Calvinistic  commentators  think  that  the  saying,  "Jacob 
I  loved,  but  Esau  I  hated,"  expresses  literally  (as  in  the  English 
sense  of  the  word)  God's  inward,  personal  feeling  of  predilection 
towards  Jacob,  in  person,  and  of  animosity  towards  Esau,  in  person. 
And  they  refer  the  aorist  tense  of  the  verbs,  "I  loved,"  and  "I 
hated,"  to  the  eternal  decree  of  God,  who,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  looked  on  these  children  of  Ilebecca,  and  predestinated 
20 


306  EXPOSITION. 

them,  tliougli  they  had  not  yet  been  born,  or  had  done  anything 
good  or  bad,  one  to  eternal  salvation,  and  the  other  to  eternal 
damnation.  And  these  commentators,  instead  of  making  Malachi'a 
sentence,  written  lii'teen  centuries  later  than  the  date  in  Genesis, 
explanatory,  as  Paul  quoted  it,  and  in  line  with  the  quotation  from 
Genesis,  "The  elder  will  serve  the  younger,"  have  reversed  the 
logical  sequence,  and  make  the  quotation  from  Malachi  the  lead- 
ing sentence  and  sentiment,  and  make  the  first  quotation  subor- 
dinate and  exegetical  of  the  second.  They  first  read  a  sinister 
meaning  into  the  passage  from  Malachi,  and  then  transfer  this 
sinister  meaning  to  the  passage  in  Genesis.  Accordingly  the 
words  in  Genesis  must  mean  that  "  the  elder  will  be  reprubate,  the 
younger  will  be  elect,"  Further,  these  commentators  object  to 
"softening  the  word  hated."  Of  course,  if  the  word  loses  its  hard 
dogmatic  meaning,  their  exposition,  like  Othello's  occupation,  is 
gone ;  and  Calvinistic  reprobation  has  no  place  in  the  text.  But 
philology  has  its  rights ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  word 
"  hate  "  is  used  here,  as  often  elsewhere  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
and  Hebrew  thought,  not  in  the  offensive  sense  of  our  English 
word  hate,  but  only  to  express  a  relatively  less  degree  of  love.  No 
one  stumbles  at  Christ's  saying,  "  If  any  man  hate  not  his  father, 
and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  brothers,  and  sisters,  he 
can  not  be  my  disciple"  (Luke  xiv,  26)  ;  or  at  the  word  in  the 
Mosaic  Law,  "  If  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved,  another  hated, 
and  if  the  firstborn  be  hers  that  was  hated,  he  shall  acknowledge 
the  son  of  the  hated  for  the  firstborn"  (Deut.  xxi,  15)  ;  or  at  the 
word  in  regard  to  Jacob's  wives,  "Jacob  loved  Rachel  more  than 
Leah  ;  and  Jehovah  saw  tliat  Leah  was  haled ;  and  she  bare  a  son, 
and  said.  Now  my  husband  will  love  me"  (Gen.  xxix,  30).  And 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  further,  that  this  is  the  sole  and  simple 
meaning  here  in  Malachi;  and  that  the  verbs  in  the  aorist  tense 
express  simply  the  well-known  historical  facts  with  regard  to  the 
two  peoples,  Israel  under  the  name  of  Jacob,  and  the  Edomites 
under  the  name  of  Esau.  The  saying  means,  that  to  tlie  Israelites 
God  gave  the  more  desirable  country,  and  greater  institutional 
opportunities,  and  to  the  Edomites  he  gave  the  less  desirable. 
Both  peoples  long  prospered,  as  Isaac  promised  (Gen.  xxvii,  29,  39)  ; 
and  both  peoples  were  afterwards,  for  their  wickedness,  taken 
cai)tive  to  Babylon.  When  the  Israelites  repented,  God  brought 
them  back ;  but  he  left  the  Edomites  in  captivity.     This  is  all 


ROMANS  IX.    10-13.  307 

that  Malachi  means ;  in  the  strong  Hebrew  form  of  expression, 
he  says,  "God  loved  the  one;  he  hated  the  other;"  that  is,  he 
showed  more  favor  (for  cause)  to  the  Jews;  he  sliowed  less  favor 
to  the  Edomites  ;  but  he  showed  favor  to  both,  until  they  forfeited 
his  forbearance.  But  no  one,  except  in  the  interests  of  an  un- 
scrijitural  creed,  could  warp  this  act  of  Divine  Providence  into  an 
election  of  Jacob,  personally,  to  eternal  life,  and  a  reprobation  of 
Esau,  personally,  to  eternal  damnation. 

Jacob  and  Esau,  pei-sonally,  are  of  smallest  moment  to  us ; 
and  it  is  a  matter  of  very  little  concern  to  us,  or  to  the  Church, 
whether  they  were  saved  or  not.  Paul  neither  affirms  nor  denies  ; 
for  it  did  not  come  into  the  scope  of  his  argument.  Their  case  is 
named  in  this  discussion  only  to  illustrate  the  principle  of  God's 
providential  government  of  nations.  The  point  of  the  discussion 
turns,  not  on  the  eternal  predestination  of  individuals  (which  is 
not  true)  ;  but  on  God's  sovereignty  in  the  providential  ordering 
of  nations,  or  peoples,  en  masse;  and  here  of  Israel  en  masse  (and 
this  only  is  true). 

Such  were  God's  dealings  in  the  days  of  old  with  the  family 
of  Abraham  to  whom  the  promises  were  given ;  such  his  dis- 
criminative election  in  the  order  of  his  providences,  among  the 
branches  of  the  family.  God's  election,  so  far  as  here  described, 
was  wholly  within  the  confines  of  the  peoples  descended  from 
Abraham, — the  election  of  Isaac  over  Ishmael,  of  Jacob  over 
Esau.  But  the  apostle  goes  on  to  show  the  Jews  that  God  is  not 
restricted  to  these  limits ;  he  can  widen  his  range  of  selection ; 
he  can  leave  the  Jews  entirely  out  of  count.  The  apostle  goes 
further  in  his  argument  with  the  Jews ;  and,  on  the  broad 
ground  that  their  descent  from  Abraham  does  not  of  itself  make 
them  the  children  of  the  promise,  and  that  the  Gentile  non- 
descent  from  Abraham  does  not  exclude  them  from  being  chil- 
dren of  the  promise,  he  says,  that  God  has  effaced  the  old  limits ; 
that  he  rejects  the  Jews  en  masse  from  being  the  elect  nation 
of  God,  and  now  calls  the  Gentiles  en  masse,  potentially,  into  the 
Church  of  Messiah. 

When  Chilon  asked  .^sop,  "What  is  God  doing?"  JEsop  an- 
swered, "  He  is  bringing  down  the  high  and  exalting  the  low  ;"  and 
Bayle  calls  this  the  philosophy  of  human  history,  which  is  only 
another  way  of  saying,  from  a  Scriptural  standpoint,  the  philosophy 
of  God's  providences  among  men. 


30fi  EXPOSTTinX. 

Verses  14-16.  Jkw  :  "What  then  shall  "we  say  ?  Is  there 
injustice  with  God  ? 

Patl:  God  forbid.  For  to  Moses  the  Scripture  says,  I 
■will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  may  have  mercy ;  and  I  will 
have  compassion  on  whom  I  may  have  compassion.  (Ex. 
XXX Hi,  19.)  Accordingly  then  [promotion]  is  not  of  him  that 
w^ills,  nor  yet  of  him  that  runs,  nay,  but  of  God  that  lias 
mercy. 

The  words  of  verse  14  belong  to  the  Jew.  They  express  the 
sentiment  that  instinctively  ari.ses  in  his  breast,  on  hearing  the 
apostle's  declaration  that  God  has  rejected  the  chosen  seed  of 
Abraham,  "  to  whom  pertained  the  promises,"  and  has  opened  the 
door  of  faith,  and  of  Church  membership  to  the  uneircumcised 
Gentiles.  To  such  abhorrent  views  of  the  apostle,  the  first  re- 
sponse of  the  Jew's  thought  and  lips  is  the  indignant  remonstrance 
of  the  text,  "What,  then?  Is  God  unjust?  Does  God,  who  of 
old  promised  our  fathers  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  during  all 
those  centuries  has  continued  his  goodness  to  us,  now  violate  his 
covenant,  and  reject  us  from  our  prescriptive  place,  and  rights, 
and  hopes?     "Is  there  injustice  with  God?" 

To  this  objection  from  tlie  Jew,  the  apostle's  conclusive  reply 
is,  that  the  Jews  misunderstand  tlie  character  and  the  limitations 
of  God's  government;  that  it  is  God's  sovereignty  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  nations  that  is  in  question:  and  his  promises  to  the  elect 
nation  were  of  this  character,  were  in  the  nature  of  the  case  con- 
tingent, and  did  not  bind  God  without  a  corresponding  fulfilhnent 
on  their  part.  His  change  of  attitude  towards  the  Jews  was  in 
line  with  this  established  principle  of  his  government,  wliich  was 
not  new  and  was  not  now  announced  for  the  first  time.  It  is 
found  in  words  with  which  the  hearers  of  tlie  synagogue  were 
familiar,  words  spoken  by  God  to  Moses  upon  occasion  of  the  sin 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf.  "When,  on  the 
intercession  of  Moses,  God  forgave  their  sin,  he  expressly  declared 
that  he  was  not  under  obligation  to  the  Jews  to  continue  them  in 
favor;  he  will  elect  whomsoever  he  chooses.  The  Scripture  says 
to  Closes,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whomsoever  (Jews  or  Gentiles)  I 
may  [choose  to]  have  mercy  ;  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom- 
soever I  may  [choose  to]  have  compassion." 

But  observe  that  the  words,  I  will  have  mercy,  I  will  have 
compassion,  spoken  in  this  connection,  are  figurative,  and  have 


ROMANS  IX.    17,  IS.  309 

identically  the  same  meaning  as  the  other  Hebrew  figure  in  the 
thirteentli  verse,  "I  loved  iacoh;''  they  refer  to  God's  favorable 
providences,  in  the  world  ;  and  do  not  point  at  all  in  the  direction 
of  predestination  of  individuals  to  eternal  life.  As  tlie  saying  in 
Exodus,  and  as  the  connection  in  Paul's  discussion  demands,  they 
can  apply  only  in  the  way  of  God's  temporal  administration  of  the 
nations,  en  masse.  And  observe  further,  that  the  saying,  "  I  will 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  may  have  mex-cy,"  can  not  refer  to  spiritual 
blessing;  for  spiritual  blessing  is  always  individual,  is  never  arbi- 
trary, is  always  uniform,  and  constant  to  the  obedient.  "  God  will 
have  all  men  to  be  saved."  But  in  God's  providential  government, 
of  nations,  where  he  deals  with  them  en  masse,  his  promises  are 
"conditional.  He  does  not  bind  himself  irrevocably  to  any  particu- 
lar nation,  or  to  any  particular  course.  He  is  free  from  obligation 
when  any  new  occasion  or  emergency  ai'ises.  And  Paul  quotes 
this  saying  to  the  Jews,  with  the  implication  that  the  emergency 
for  a  change  of  action  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  has  now  arisen.  God 
elected  and  promoted  them  once  to  high  place  and  opportunity  : 
he  now  consistently,  and  without  injustice,  displaces  them ;  and 
promotes  the  Gentiles. 

From  the  question  which  the  Jew  asks,  "Is  God  unjust?"  it 
would  almost  seem  that  the  Jews  had  really  never  read  those 
words  of  God  to  Moses,  or,  at  least,  had  not  thought  that  they 
could  possibly  apply  to  themselves.  But  this  application  of  the 
saying  to  the  Jews  is  just  what  Moses  intended,  and  is  what  Paul 
has  all  through  the  Epistle  been  insisting  on.  He  has  told  them 
that  God  grants  nothing  unconditionally,  nothing  exclusively. 
Nay,  God  has  mercy  (that  is,  gives  providential  promotion)  on 
^vhomsoever  he  may  choose  to  have  mercy,  under  particular  cir- 
cumstances. Once  he  had  mercy  on  the  Jews  [gave  tliem  promo- 
tion], just  as  he  himself  then  willed  it.  Accordingly  tliis  promo- 
tion is  not  within  the  control  of  the  Jew  to  will  it,  or  of  the  Jew 
to  run  after  it ;  but  wholly  in  the  control  of  God  who  has  mercy 
just  as  he  himself  wills  it.  But  now,  under  changed  circumstances, 
God  for  cause  displaces  the  Jews,  and  has  mercy  on  the  Gentiles, 
and  promotes  them  to  vacated  membership  in  the  Church  of 
Christ. 

Verses  17,  18.  For  the  Scripture  says  to  Pharaoh,  that 
Unto  this  very  end  I  raised  thee  up,  that  I  may  show  in 
thee  ray  power,  and  that  nay  name  may  be  declared  abroad 


310  EXPOSITION. 

in   all  the  earth.     (Ex.  ix,  16.)     Accordingly  then   he   has 
mercy  on  whom  he  wills ;  but  whom  he  wills  he  hardens. 

The  apostle  cites  the  case  of  Pharaoh  as  a  further  illustration 
of  the  principle  that  God  has  mercy;  that  is,  confers  worldly 
promotion  (which  is  tlie  only  point  liere  in  issue)  iin|)artially  on 
peoples  or  individuals  of  various  nationalities  (and  not  upon  the 
Jews  only),  according  as  they  may  serve  his  purposes.  God's  mes- 
sage to  Pharaoh  declares  that  God  "  hud  mercy  "  on  him — that  is, 
raised  him  to  the  throne — that  he  may  siiow  in  him,  as  liis  chosen 
servant,  his  gracious  power,  and  that,  through  the  king,  the  divine 
name  may  be  glorified  through  the  earth.  This  message  has  usu- 
ally been  understood  as  having  just  the  opposite  sense;  but  the 
connection  of  the  passage  makes  it  clear  that  we  must  understand 
it  as  here  described.     Such  is  Paul's  use  of  the  passage. 

That  God  should  "  have  mercy  "  on  Pharaoh,  and  promote  him, 
and  use  him  as  his  servant,  for  his  glory,  is  perhaps  a  novel  view  to 
take  of  the  Egyptian  incident;  but  it  is  quite  apposite  to  the  prin- 
ciple whicli  tlie  apostle  is  here  developing,  and  it  is  quite  in  accord 
with  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons: 
the  Gentile  Phai-aoh  was  as  precious  in  his  eye  as  the  father  of 
the  faithful  himself,  or  the  great  liberator  of  the  Jews,  man  for 
man.  And  so  God  sent  to  Pharaoli,  a  Gentile,  and  an  oppressor  of 
the  Jews,  this  message,  not  of  denunciation — or  of  tliat  only — 
but  of  expostulation,  that  he  may  win  him  and  save  him  and  his 
people:  "To  this  very  end  I  'had  mercy'  on  thee,  and  raised  thee 
to  tlie  throne,  that  I  may  make  thee  see  my  power,  and  that 
through  thy  agency  my  name  may  be  honored  in  all  the  world." 
There  is  nothing  strange  in  this  explanation;  it  is,  in  fact,  the 
only  consistent  one.  God  would  bring  Pharaoh  to  be  his  willing 
servant,  and  would  use  him  to  his  own  ends ;  just  as  afterwards  he 
had  mercy  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  on  Cyrus,  and,  though  they 
were  Gentiles,  and  heatlien,  he  called  them  "his  servants,"  and 
raised  them  to  high  place,  not  to  destroy  them,  but  for  his  own 
glory:  "  I  will  set  the  throne  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon, 
my  servant,  upon  the  stones  of  Egypt"  (Jer.  xliii,  10);  and 
"Cyrus,  my  servant,  my  anointed,  will  perform  all  my  pleasure" 
(Isa.  xliv,  28). 

The  conjunction  for,  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth 
verse,  points  logically  to  tlie  same  interpretation.  This  woi-d  con- 
nects back  to  the  preceding  clause,  and  adds  this  confirmation,  in 


BOMANS  IX.    17,  18.  311 

the  following  sentence:  "God  has  irercy  (that  is,  gives  temporal 
promotion) :  for  the  Scripture  says  to  Pharaoh,  that  for  this  gra- 
cious purpose  I  raised  thee  up."  Another  confirmation  is  found 
in  the  Hebrew  text,  in  a  minor  word  which  Paul  has  not  quoted, 
but  which,  correctly  translated,  becomes  an  important  factor  in 
the  interpretation— the  conjunction  D  S  T  X^  which  is  found  nineteen 
times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  The  Authorized  and  the  Revised 
translate  this  word  twice  as  an  intensive  adverb — here,  and  in 
1  Sam.  XXV,  34:  "In  very  deed,  for  this  cause,  I  raised  thee  up." 
But  the  word  is  always  a  conjunction,  and  its  meaning,  yet,  instead 
of  intensifying  the  clause  in  which  it  stands,  waives  the  meaning 
in  the  preceding  verse  and  expresses  a  retraction  or  counter  view. 
"We  must  recollect  that  the  message  to  Pharaoh  is  expostulatory, 
and  not  denunciatory.  The  following  is  a  correct  translation : 
"  For  now  had  I  stretched  out  my  hand  and  smitten  thee  and  thy 
people,  thou  hadst  been  cut  off  from  the  earth ;  but  yet,  for  the 
sake  of  this  I  raised  thee  up,  namely,  that  I  may  show  thee  my 
power,  and  that  my  name  may  be  declared  in  all  the  earth." 

This  does  not  mean  that  God  raised  Pharaoh  to  that  bad  emi- 
nence, with  the  purpose  to  pillory  him  before  the  gaze  of  the  world, 
as  a  terrible  example  of  his  autocratic  power  to  crush  and  damn. 
Paul  quotes  from  the  Septuagint  translation  "  to  show  iyi  thee," 
which  might  (though  not  neccessarily)  have  the  sinister  sense  that 
God  proposed  to  make  in  him  an  example  to  the  eyes  of  others. 
But  the  Hebrew  word  is  "  to  show  thee,"  or,  more  literally,  "  to 
make  thee  to  see  "  God's  sovereign  power  in  his  providences.  Cer- 
tainly it  was  not  the  destruction  of  the  king  that  God  wished,  but 
his  repentance  and  oljedience.  God's  long  forbearance  with  the 
king  followed  the  natural  plienomena  of  the  seasons  through  an 
entire  year.  It  was  only  after  the  sixth  plague  that  God  sent  him 
this  message.  No  life  had  yet  been  destroyed  ;  and  tlie  tenor  of 
the  narrative  shows  that  God's  feeling  towards  the  king  was  not 
threat,  or  threat  only,  but  expostulation  and  admonition.  There 
is  but  this  one  interpretation.  Nine  times  God  warned  the  king; 
nine  times  he  brought  him  to  repentance.  To  the  last  God  would 
have  been  glad  to  save  the  king,  as  Christ  was  glad  to  save  the 
penitent  robber  on  the  cross  ;  and  it  was  only  upon  the  king's  final 
incorrigibility  that  he  destroyed  him  and  his  people. 

The  saying,  "  Whom  he  will  he  hardens,"  seems  to  make  it 
God's  act.  But  God  certainly  never  takes  the  initiative  in  harden- 
ing man's  heart.    Besides,  in  Jewish  psychology,  the  word  "  heart" 


312  EXPOSITION. 

stands  ns  often  for  the  ('(7/  as  for  tlie  affections.  Such  seems  to  be  the 
meaning  in  the  story  of  Pharaoh  ;  and  when  it  is  said  that  "  Pharaoh 
hardened  his  lieart,"  it  does  not  so  fitly  express  callousness  of  affec- 
tions (which  comes  on  only  by  slow  growth)  as  stubbornness  of  will. 
Pharaoh  stiffened  his  will  against  (lod.  But  it  is  also  said  that 
"  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart ;"  but  this  act  of  hardening  was  in 
response  to  the  king's  self-hardening.  "With  the  froward  God 
showed  himself  froward."  (Psa.  xviii,  26.)  It  is  in  tliis  responsive 
fashion  that  God  said,  "  Ephi-aim  [that  is,  the  northern  kingdom  of 
Israel]  is  joined  to  idols:  leave  him  to  himself"  (Hos.  iv,  17); 
"God  gave  rebellious  Israel  their  own  desire"  (Psa.  Ixxviii,  29)  ; 
"  God  gave  the  heathen  up  to  their  wickedness"  (Rom.  i,  24,  26). 
Yet  none  of  these  things  did  God  desire  ;  and  so  far  was  he  from 
dri\nng  Pharaoh  to  hardness  of  heart,  or  obduracy  of  will,  he  ten 
times  essayed  to  restrain  him  from  it ;  and  ten  times  Pharaoh 
repented,  and  God  as  often  relented,  and  turned  him  from  his 
anger.  Only  when  Pharaoh  was  persistently  obstinate,  did  God 
"harden  him," — that  is,  abandon  him  to  his  willfulness, — and 
smite  him  and  his  people  (who  seem  to  have  been  equally  guilty 
with  the  king)  (Ex.  ix,  27,  34)  with  the  last  plague.  On  the  re- 
newed resistance  of  the  Egyptians  (Ex.  xiv,  17)  "he  hardened 
their  hearts,"  and  drowned  them  in  the  sea. 

We  must  keep  in  mind  that  tlu-oughout  this  chapter  Paul's 
one  topic  is  God's  providential  administration  as  shown  in  the  re- 
jection of  the  Jews  and  the  inbringing  of  the  Gentiles,  and  he 
mentions  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  not  as  an  advance  step  in  his  argu- 
ment, but  only  as  a  further  instance  of  the  principle  already 
stated  and  illustrated  in  the  cases  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  that  God 
has  mercy  (gives  promotion)  wherever  he  will,  to  Jew  or  to  Gen- 
tile alike.  Beyond  this,  the  apostle  is  not  concerned  here  in  the 
history  of  Pharaoh  personally,  or  in  God's  dealings  with  the  king; 
just  as  we  saw  before,  in  the  cases  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  that  the 
mention  of  them  was  impersonal.  But  the  commentators  quite 
unanimously  think  that  the  personal  fate  of  Pharaoh  is  the  sole 
reason,  or  the  main  reason,  of  the  apostle's  introduction  of  his 
history  here.  And  they  interpret  Paul's  words  as  meaning.  "  I 
raised  thee  up  in  order  signally  to  destroy  thee,  that  is,  to  damn 
thee."  This  interpretation  is  in  the  line  and  in  support  of  a  doc- 
trine which  has  not  the  shadow  of  a  place  in  this  discussion.  This 
case  of  Pharaoh  is,  indeed,  the  typical  and  authoritative  one  for 
theologians  of  this  school.     And  in  the  light  of  this  concrete  in- 


ROMANS  IX.    19-21.  313 

stance  of  Pharaoh,  and  of  the  general  affirmation  of  the  potter's 
power  over  the  chiy,  these  commentators  count  this  chapter  as  the 
conclusive  authority  on  God's  sovereign  and  absolute  predestina- 
tion of  the  souls  of  men  to  eternal  weal  or  to  eternal  woe.  He 
has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  (and  saves  them,  at  any  rate),  and 
whom  he  will  he  hardens,  and  damns! 

The  apostle's  single  and  simple  intent  in  this  reference  to 
Pharaoh  is  to  show  that,  as  in  the  providential  government  of  the 
Jews,  so,  in  the  case  of  the  king,  God  determined  his  sphere  in  the 
world  and  shaped  his  opportunities  (but  surely  he  did  not  shape 
the  king's  actions;  they  were  his  own).  This  promotion  of  the 
king  to  the  throne  was  wholly  of  God,  who  "  has  mercy"  (that  is, 
extends  favor  to  men  and  nations),  as  he  wills.  "Promotion 
comes  not  from  the  east,  nor  from  the  west,  nor  from  the  south ; 
but  God  is  judge  ;  he  puts  down  one,  and  sets  up  another."  (Psa. 
Ixxv,  6.)  Yet  this  man  whom  God  once  promoted  to  the  throne, 
he  afterwards, /or  cause,  rejected  and  destroyed.  And  this  is  the 
point  which  Paul  makes  upon  the  Jews.  God  once  called  tliese 
Jews  to  high  place  and  to  gracious  prerogatives :  they  have  diso- 
obeyed  and  hardened  themselves ;  and  now  God  retributively 
"  hardens"  them,  and  rejects  them  fi^om  their  theocratic  place  in 
his  plans. 

Verses  19-21.    "Wilt  thou  then  say  to  me : 
Jew  :  "Why  does  he  yet  blame  us  ?  for  who  withstands 
his  w^ill  ? 

Paul  :  O  man !  indeed  then,  who  art  thou  that  answer- 
est  back  to  God  ?  Shall  the  thing  molded  say  to  him  that 
molded  it,  Why  didst  thou  make  me  thus?  Or  has  not 
the  potter  control  of  the  clay,  from  the  same  lump  to  make 
one  vessel  a  vessel  unto  honor,  and  another  vessel  unto 
dishonor  ? 

The  word  withstands  in  the  Eevised  is  more  exact  than  the 
word  "resists"  in  the  Authorized.  Paul's  word  does  not  merely 
mean  resists,  for  the  Jews  did  that;  but  it  means  tvithstands,  offers 
successful  resistance,  which  the  Jews  disclaim. 

The  inferential  conjunction  then  (or  "therefore"),  and  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  apostle's  words,  "  Wilt  thou  therefore  say  to 
me?"  shows  that  the  Jew  accepts  the  last  words  of  verse  18  as 
aimed  at  himself,  or  his  people.  The  mere  "  hardening  of  their 
heart "  does  not  exhaust  the  apostle's  meaning  in  his  application 


314  EXPOSITION. 

of  the  saying  to  the  Jews.  It  meant  all  this,  this  hardening  of 
of  their  heart  (or  obstinacy  of  will),  as  it  did  in  tlie  case  of  Pha- 
raoh ;  but  it  meant  more  in  the  case  of  tlie  Jews.  It  implied,  for 
them,  the  penalty  they  had  incurred  for  their  unfaith  in  Messiah 
and  their  obduracy.  It  implied  their  rejection  en  masse  from  be- 
ing the  theocratic  nation ;  and  the  reception  en  masse  of  the  Gen- 
tiles into  favor  (position)  with  God.  And  this  subversion  of  all 
their  national  theocratic  hopes  and  boasting  is  what  the  Jew 
correctly  understood  Paul  to  mean.  His  captious  question  and 
reclamation  at  the  apostle's  position  shows  that  he  undei'stood 
him  too  well.  "  Why,  then,  does  (Jod  yet  blame  us  Jews,  with  our 
unfaith  in  Christ?  On  your  own  showing,  he  has  his  sovereign 
way  with  us;  for  who  withstands  his  will?"  That  is,  Why  does 
he  depose  us  from  our  time-honored  theocratic  position,  and  pro- 
mote the  Gentiles  to  an  equality  with  us,  or  even  to  a  superemi- 
nence  in  the  Church  ? 

To  this  self-sufficient  and  carping  question  of  the  Jew,  the 
apostle's  answer  is  a  sharp  rebuke:  O  man!  indeed  then,  who 
art  thou  that  answerest  back  to  God  ?  To  some  persons  this 
answer  of  Paul's  is,  after  all,  not  a  rejjly  to  the  Jew's  difficulty, 
but  seems  like  an  attempt  to  bully  and  browbeat  his  opponent. 
If  Paul  had  not  had  a  reasonable  answer,  it  would  have  been  better 
policy  not  to  state  the  Jew's  objection,  and  then  resort  to  bluster 
to  meet  it.  But  the  apostle's  line  of  thought  shows  that  his 
answer  is  not  petulant,  but  pertinent,  and  conclusive.  The  Jews, 
as  we  have  seen,  assume  that  their  election  as  the  theocratic  people 
of  God  was  unconditional;  and  that  not  even  God  could,  without 
injustice,  dispossess  them,  or  bring  the  Gentiles  into  enjoyment  of 
their  vested  rights.  Paul's  reply  is,  that  in  the  temporal  affairs  of 
men,  of  whicli  the  election  of  the  Jews  is  one,  God  is  sovereign; 
that  all  his  administration  is  conditioned  ;  that  he  has  the  right  to 
dispose  of  men  as  he  wills:  that  he  once  assigned  the  Jews  to  a 
high  and  honoral)le  place,  but  now,  for  cause,  he  assigns  them  to  a 
lower  and  humbler  place ;  and  promotes  the  Gentiles  to  member- 
ship in  the  Church  ;  and  that  in  doing  all  this,  he  works  the  Jews 
no  injustice.  In  point  of  equity,  the  Jews  have  no  more  right  of 
reclamation  against  God's  providential  disposal  of  them,  than  the 
Gentiles  had  had  for  all  the  centuries  past;  or  than  have  the  pots 
wiiich  a  potter  has  made,  out  of  the  same  clay,  one  for  a  nobler 
use,  and  one  for  a  meaner  use.  All  men  are  in  the  hands  of  God, 
to  be  appointed  and  used,  in  his  providential  plans,  as  he  wills,  just 


ROMANS  IX.    19-21.  315 

as  the  clay  is  in  the  potter's  hands  to  be  molded  as  he  wills,  into  a 
parlor  vase  when  he  can  ;  but  if  the  clay  is  stiff  and  intractable, 
into  a  washpot.-'  The  figure  of  a  potter  is  as  frequent  in  the 
Scripture  as  it  is  expressive ;  and  Paul  uses  it  here  (as  the  other 
Scripture  writers  do),  to  illustrate  God's  providential  manipula- 
tions of  men,  for  temporal  and,  usually,  national  issues.  It  is  in 
the  line  of  this  figure  of  a  potter,  that  Paul  asks  tlie  Jew,  Shall 
the  thing  molded  say  to  him  that  molded  it,  Why  didst 
thou  make  me  thus?  The  last  question  needs  explanation. 
The  verb  make  does  not  here  mean,  as  it  does  in  some  places,  to 
create,  or  to  bring  into  being;  nor  to  constitute,  to  give  one  a 
wrong  bent ;  but,  as  the  connection  shows,  it  means  to  appoint,  to 
destine  to  a  certain  sphere  or  rank  (just  as,  in  every-day  English, 
we  use  the  word  in  the  same  sense  ;  we  male  [appoint]  a  man 
chief,  or  subordinate).  So  here,  the  Jew  does  not  mean  to  ask 
why  the  Potter  gave  him  existence,  or  why  he  constituted  him  as 
he  is  ;  but  wliy  the  Potter  so  disposed  of  him  in  the  world:  "Why 
didst  thou  make  me,  once  so  high  in  thy  plans,  now  so  mean? 
Why  didst  thou  degrade  me,  and  exalt  the  Gentile  to  a  higher 
place?"  It  was  not  the  mere  words  of  the  question  to  which  Paul 
objected,  but  the  spirit  of  it.  God  asks  that  man  should  reason 
with  him,  and  even  arraign  him.  "  Come,  let  us  reason  together; 
are  not  my  ways  equal?"  and  David  says,  "That  thou  mayest  be 
found  blameless,  when  thou  art  judged."  But  this  question  of  the 
Jew  was  captious,  and  disrespectful:  it  inveighs,  not  inquires;  it 
reproaches,  not  expostulates.  Yet  even  thus,  Paul  gave  it  an 
answer. 

This  discussion  (as  we  have  so  often  seen)  has  reference  only 
to  God's  sovereignty  in  the  temporal  affairs  of  men  ;  and  here  only 
so  far  as  God  appoints  men  (as  nations,  not  as  individuals)  to  their 
relative  place  and  rank  in  the  world  and  in  the  Church.  This  is 
the  point  which  he  illustrates  by  the  figure  of  the  potter ;  and  he 
alludes  specifically  to  the  noted  passage  in  Jeremiah,  familiar, 
doubtless,  to  every  Jew,  a  passage  so  clear  and  decisive  on  this 
point  as  to  be  beyond  misunderstanding  or  perversion.  The  mat- 
ter to  be  illustrated  by  this  figure  of  the  potter,  is  not  the  Divine 
creation  of  vessels  [menl  of  different  moral  character,  and  differ- 
ent eternal  destinies ;  but  God's  sovereign  designation  of  those 
vessels  to  different  spheres  in  the  world.    The  passage  from  Jere- 


*  "  Moab  is  my  washpot.''    (Ps.  Ix,  8.) 


316  EXPOSITION. 

minh  is  so  significant  that  I  (jiiote  it  in  full:  "  I  went  down  to  the 
potter's  house,  and,  beliold,  lie  was  making  a  work  on  the  wheel. 
And  the  vessel  which  he  was  making  of  tiie  clay  was  spoiled  in  the 
hand  of  the  potter;  and  he  turned  and  made  it  another  vessel,  as 
it  seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it.  Then  the  woi-d  of  Jeho- 
vah came  to  me,  saying,  O  house  of  Israel,  can  not  I  do  with  you 
as  this  potter  ?  Behold,  as  the  clay  in  the  hand  of  the  potter,  so 
are  ye  in  my  hand,  O  house  of  Israel.  If  ever  I  speak  concerning 
a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  it  up,  and  to  break  it 
down,  and  to  destroy  it ;  and  that  nation,  concerning  which  I  spoke, 
turn  from  its  evil,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  which  I  thought 
to  do  unto  it.  And  if  ever  I  speak  concerning  a  nation  and  con- 
cerning a  kingdom,  to  build  it  and  to  plant  it;  and  it  do  evil  in  my 
sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good 
wherewith  I  said  I  would  benefit  it."     (Jer.  xviii,  3-10.) 

Nowhere  is  God's  absolute  sovereignty  in  the  affairs  of  nations, 
and  his  change  (for  cause)  in  his  dealings  with  them,  more  clearly 
and  consistently  exhibited.  And  this  exhibition  of  God's  attitude 
towards  Israel,  and  dealings  with  them,  nationally,  is  just  what 
Paul  aimed  to  declare  in  the  verse  before  us.  His  words  are 
spoken,  not  of  men  at  large,  but  of  Jews  exclusively  ;  and  not  of 
the  Jews,  individually,  in  relation  to  their  spiritual  and  eternal 
interests,  but  of  the  Jews  nationally,  en  masse j  in  relation  to  their 
place  in  God's  administrative  plans.  God  does  not  deal  with  the 
Jews  now  individually,  just  as,  in  the  days  of  Moses,  he  did  not 
deal  with  their  fathers  individually  ;  but  thought  to  consume  his 
people  en  masse.  So  now,  instead  of  continuing  the  Jews  as  the 
chosen  nation,  the  leaders  of  God's  hosts,  he  has  taken  their  com- 
mission from  them,  and  reduced  them  to  the  ranks;  or  rather  he 
has  banned  them  out  of  service,  until  the  time  of  repentance  shall 
come  for  them,  and  the  Potter  shall  once  more  take  the  clay  into 
his  hands,  and  mold  it  anew  to  his  will.  Meanwhile  the  Jews  will 
stand  where  all  mankind  stood  before  the  call  of  Abraham,  and 
where  the  Gentiles  have  always  stood,  undistinguished  from  the 
mass  of  mankind.  The  Potter  has  reconsidered  the  high  call  of 
the  Jews,  and  has  brought  them  down  from  the  rank  of  a  parlor 
vase,  to  the  rank  and  office  of  a  washpot.  Paul  elsewhere  says, 
"  In  a  great  house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  of  silver, 
but  also  of  wood  and  clay ;  and  some  unto  honor,  and  some  unto 
dishonor."  (2  Tim.  ii,  20.)  It  is  to  the  latter  class  that  God  now 
assigns  the  Jews. 


ROMANS  IX.    19-21.  317 

Verses  22-24.  Preliminary  Translation  : — "  But  if  God  willing 
to  display  his  wrath  and  to  make  known  his  power  endured  in 
much  longsuffering  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  unto  destruction  and  in 
order  that  he  may  make  known  tlie  riches  of  his  glory  upon  vessels 
of  mercy  which  he  of  old  prepared  unto  glory  whom  also  he  called 
us  not  only  from  Jews  nay  but  also  from  Gentiles." 

I  have  given  above  a  literal  translation  of  the  sentence,  that  is, 
of  the  words,  without  any  editorial  suggestion,  in  the  way  of  added 
words,  or  of  punctuation.  The  sentence  in  this  naked  form  doubt- 
less represents  verbally  Paul's  original  autograph,  or  dictation. 

The  passage  in  the  Greek,  in  its  unsupplemented  form,  has  given 
the  translators  and  exegetes  great  vexation  of  soul.  It  is  evidently 
(as  so  often  in  Paul's  writings)  defective,  doubly  defective.  It . 
may  be  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first  part,  verse  22,  is,  in 
itself,  a  complex  sentence,  of  which  only  the  protasis  (the  "if" 
clause)  is  given;  and  the  apodosis  (the  responsive,  assertive,  or 
consequent  clause)  is  to  be  supplied.  The  translators  usually 
supply  as  an  apodosis  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  the  inter- 
rogative pronoun  ^'Wliat?"  which  is  grammatically  sufHcient, 
though  it  alone  scarcely  helps  us  to  any  satisfactory,  logical  sense. 
The  second  part  of  the  passage,  verses  23  and  24  (after  the  word 
"and"),  is  likewise  a  complex  sentence,  of  which  (unlike  the  first 
sentence)  only  the  consequent  clause  is  given,  and  the  verb  of  the 
protasis  is  to  be  supplied.  But  here  the  translators  have  not  es- 
sayed to  help  us  at  all.  To  make  any  sense  whatever,  we  must 
supply  what  they  have  left  lacking. 

In  attacking  the  passage  we  may  assume,  at  the  start,  that  the 
apostle  has  not  wandered  from  his  one  theme  in  the  chapiter,  the 
relations  of  the  Jews  to  the  call  of  God,  and  to  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ.  And  it  remains  that  we  inquire  what  disposition,  gram- 
matical and  logical,  we  must  (not  may)  make  of  the  saying,  so  as 
to  conform  it  with  the  apostle's  line  of  thought.  And  the  discus- 
sion of  the  passage  before  us  must  follow  this  line ;  for  only  thus 
can  we  reach  any  tenable  result.  We  must  supply  something  in 
each  sentence,  not  necessarily  the  same  supply ;  but  the  supply  or 
supplies  must  help  explain  the  apostle's  words,  and  be  apposite  to 
his  theme. 

I  name  a  few  points  in  advance: 

1.  We  may  safely  make  two  complete  sentences  out  of  the 
passage ;  the  first  embracing  verse  22,  and  the  second  verses  23 
and  24. 


318  EXPOSITION. 

2.  The  Mpostk-'s  iirguiiu-nt  is  in  elTect  addressed  to  the  Jews ; 
and  for  directness  and  clearness'  sake,  we  may  express  his  thought 
in  tlie  second  person. 

8.  Tlie  concessive  conjunction  "»/"  (el)  and  the  indicative  mode 
in  the  verb  ''endured"  {iji'cyKfv)  are  used  of  a  matter  of  liistorical 
fact. 

4.  Tlic  word  "  What,"  supplied  by  the  Authorized  and  Revised 
as  the  apodosis  in  verse  22,  gives  us  no  definite  sense  ;  as  this  inter- 
rogative j)ronoun  may  have  various  meanings.  AVe  should  need 
additional  vvoi"ds  to  interpret  it,  such  as  Paul  always  adds  to  his 
question,  "  What  then  shall  we  say?"     But, 

5.  The  Greek  does  not  indicate  that  the  sentences  are  ques- 
tions, as  in  the  old  translations ;  and  therefore, 

6.  The  apodosis  to  be  supplied  in  verse  22  may  be  (1)  interrog- 
ative, (2)  impei-ative,  or  (3)  declarative.     Thus: 

(1)  "If  God— endured  the  Jews,"— what  follows?  Will  lie 
always  endure? 

(2)  "If  God — endured  the  Jews" — do  not  look  that  he  shall 
do  so  forever. 

(3)  "If  God — endured  the  Jews" — his  forbearance  does  not 
imply  that  he  will  always  endure. 

I  adopt  the  last,  as  being  also  the  best  solution  of  the  next 
sentence. 

7.  The  Greek  word  (d^Xcji')  translated  ''  u'illing,"  does  not  mean 
^'consenting"  (for  wliich  the  Greek  is  iKJiv),  but  "  having  a  will  lo ;" 
that  is,  resolving,  purposing.  And  the  force  of  the  present  tense 
of  the  word  may  be  expressed  by  the  words  "  all  along." 

8.  In  the  second  sentence,  verse  23,  the  apodosis  is  made  by 
the  simple  and  easy  repetition  of  the  verb  "  endured,"  from  the 
twenty-second  verse. 

With  these  preliminaries  we  are  now  prepared  to  retranslate 
the  passage,  both  for  its  grammar  and  its  thought: 

Verses  22-24.  But  if  God,  thoug-h  purposing  all  along 
to  display  his  wrath,  and  to  make  known  his  power,  never- 
theless endured  with  much  long-suffering  [the  Jewish]  ves- 
sels of  w^rath,  fitted  unto  destruction,  [this  endurance  does 
not  imply  that  he  will  always  endure  them].  And  [he  en- 
dured them]  only  in  order  that  he  may  make  known 
[through  them  as  his  provisional  missionary  Church],  the 
riches  of  his  glory  upon   [the  Gentile]  vessels  of  mercy, 


ROMANS  IX.  25-29.  319 

which  he  of  old  prepared  unto  glory ;  whom  also  he  called, 
— us  [I  say],  (not  only  from  Jews),  nay,  but  also  from 
Gentiles : 

The  passage,  thus  completed  and  explained,  makes  coherent 
sense  in  itself,  and  falls  into  perfect  harmony  with  the  previous 
discussion.  This  is  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  exegesis,  the 
only  exegesis  which  the  Greek  permits,  or  the  argument  admits. 

The  phrases  vessels  of  wrath,  vessels  of  mercy,  are 
Hebraisms  which  mean  "objects  of  wrath,  of  mercy;"  and  those 
words  (like  "  loved"  and  "  hated,"  in  verse  13),  are  words  express- 
ive of  concepts  in  the  line  of  God's  providences.  Tlie  two  phrases 
do  not  describe  bad  men  indiscriminately,  and  good  men  indis- 
criminately, out  of  the  world  at  large;  and  in  relation  to  their 
eternal  destinies  ;  for  that  is  not  what  Paul  is  discussing ;  but  they 
describe,  definitely,  and  definitively,  the  Jews,  "the  vessels  of 
wrath,"  en  viasse,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Gentiles,  "  the  vessels 
of  mercy,"  en  masse,  on  the  other,  in  their  national  relations  to 
God's  government.  The  term  fitted  unto  destruction  expresses 
the  Jews'  self-fitting  (but  against  God's  will),  not  to  eternal 
destruction,  but  to  national  rejection  from  their  theocratic  posi- 
tion and  privileges.  And  the  phrase,  he  prepared  of  old  for 
glory,  expresses  God's  plans  and  measures  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  to  bring  the  Gentiles  into  this  higher  relation  to  the 
Church.  The  twenty-fourth  verse  expresses  Paul's  concept  of  the 
"glory"  as  being  the  national  glory  just  spoken  of.  By  the  pro- 
noun us,  which  Paul  here  uses,  he  identifies  himself  with  the  Gen- 
tiles, w^hom,  he  says,  God  called  to  this  high  calling,— even  us 
Gentiles.  And  the  next  clause,  read  as  a  parenthesis,  not  only 
from  Jews,  stands  as  Paul's  protest  against  the  exclusiveness  of 
the  Jews. 

And  then  the  apostle  proceeds  to  quote  from  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  various  passages  in  which  the  call  and  in-bringing  of 
the  Gentiles  are  explicitly  prophesied. 

Verses  25-29.  As  also  in  Hosea  the  Scripture  says 
[concerning  the  Gentiles], 

I  will  call  the  non-people  of  me,  my  people  ; 

And  her,  the  not-beloved  one,  beloved.     (IIos.  ii,  23.) 

And  it  w^ill  be,  that  in  the  place  w^here  it  was  said  to 

them,  Ye  are  not  my  people, 
There  they  will  be  called  Sons  of  the  living  God.  (Hos.  i,  10.) 


320  ^XPOSITIO^. 

But  Isaiah  cries  concerning  Israel, 

If  the  number  of  the  sons  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand  of 

the  sea, 
[Only]  the  remnant  will  be  saved: 
For  a  thing  will  Jehovah  do  upon  the  earth, 
Accomplishing  it  and  cutting  it  short.     (Isii.  x,  22.) 

And  according  as  Isaiah  before  has  said, 

Unless  Jehovah  of  armies  had  left  us  a  seed, 
We  should  have  become  as  Sodom,  and  shoijld  have 
been  made  like  Gomorrah.     (Isa.  i,  9.) 

The  words  of  Hosea,  which  Paul  quotes  here  as  if  spoken  of 
the  Gentiles,  were  originally  spoken  of  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel. 
It  may  be  thought  either  that  Paul  forgot  their  first  application, 
or  that  from  their  appositeness  to  his  purpose  he  Intentionally 
read  into  tliem  a  reference  to  the  Gentiles.  But  the  more  probable 
explanation  is  that  Hosea  spoke  the  words  as  of  a  sinful  and  al- 
most heathen  Israel ;  and  that  it  was  in  this  light  that  Paul  took 
the  saying  to  describe  the  return  of  the  actual  Gentile,  heathen 
world.  In  the  same  way  Peter  quotes  the  first  of  these  Hosean 
passages  to  describe  the  recall  of  the  literal  Israel,  once  sinful  and 
out  of  Christ,  but  now  believing.     (1  Pet.  ii,  10.) 

Paul  quotes  the  two  passages  from  Hosea  to  express  the  future 
enlargement  of  the  Gentiles;  and,  conversely,  the  two  quotations 
from  Isaiah  to  express  the  future  diminution  and  rejection  of 
Israel,  all  but  a  bare  remnant.  We  must  understand  the  con- 
trasted futures  of  the  two  peoples  as  involving,  not  their  spiritual 
and  eternal  destinies,  but  only  their  national  rank  and  ecclesias- 
tical standing  in  relation  to  God's  plans.  The  Gentiles  come  to  the 
front,  as  the  people  to  whom  the  gospel  has  given  enlargement ; 
the  Jews  fall  to  the  rear,  and  arc  counted  no  longer  as  the  elect 
and  promoted  people,  but  as  outside  of  the  general  Church  of  the 
future. 

The  salient  point  of  the  two  quotations  from  Isaiah  is,  fii'st, 
that  the  national  Israel  may  be  rejected ;  and  secondly,  that  it 
actually  tvas  largely  rejected  in  the  downfall  and  captivity  of  the 
kingdom  of  Israel;  from  which  only  a  remnant  returned.  Such 
was  the  concept  and  the  teaching  of  Isaiah  seven  centuries  before 
Christ ;  and  Paul  reads  in  it  now  a  lesson  to  the  Jews  of  his  own 
day,  that  what  was  possible  and  actual  in  the  days  of  the  fathers 
is  possible  and  actual  in  the  days  of  their  descendants.     And  the 


ROMANS  IX.    SO-33.  321 

point  of  the  quotations  from  Hosea  is,  tliat  the  Gentiles  may  be 
called  to  be  God's  people,  and  gathered  into  the  Church.  These 
two  points  were  equally  abhorrent  to  the  feelings  of  the  Jews  ;  but 
Paul,  in  the  next  verses  tells  them  that  both  have  been  accom- 
plished. 

Verses  30-33.     Jew:  "Wliat  then  shall  we  say? 

Paul:  That  Gentiles,  who  were  not  seeking  justifica- 
tion, obtained  justification,  but  justification  which  is  from 
faith ;  but  Israel  seeking  a  law  of  justification,  did  not 
attain  to  law. 

Jew:  Wherefore? 

Paul:  Because  [they  sought  it]  not  from  faith;  nay,  but 
as  from  works :  they  stumbled  against  the  Stone  of  stum- 
bling ;  according  as  it  has  been  written. 

Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  Stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  Rock 
of  offense : 

And  he  that  has  faith  on  him  will  not  be  brought  to 
shame.  (Isa.  viii,  14;  xxviii,  16.) 

The  word  Gentiles,  without  the  article,  is  not  enumerative, 
but  descriptive ;  that  is,  it  does  not  catalogue  all  who  belong  to 
this  people,  but  describes  their  character  or  type,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  the  persons  included.  "The  Gentiles" 
(with  the  article)  would  comprehend  all.  Paul  doubtless  has  in 
his  thought  all  men  outside  of  Israel,  but  he  uses  the  anarthrous 
word  "  Gentiles,"  not  so  much  to  include  all  as  to  characterize 
them. 

The  quotations  are  fi-om  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  to  which  all 
Jews  bow  as  final.  What  bearing  have  they  on  the  matter  under 
discussion  ?  The  quotations  from  Isaiah  exclude  the  Jews  from 
the  Church ;  the  quotations  from  Hosea  declare  the  introduction 
of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church.  Where,  then,  do  the  Jews  stand  ? 
The  Jew,  driven  to  feel  for  his  gi'ound,  asks  (verse  20) ,  What  then 
shall  we  say?  What,  according  to  this  showing,  is  the  position 
of  the  Jews  before  God  ?  This  question,  which  seems  a  candid 
asking  for  the  facts,  Paul  answers  in  like  spirit,  but  in  the  line  of 
all  the  previous  discussion.  He  has  taught  that  the  one  felt  need 
that  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  religion  is  justification,  or  acquittal 
from  guilt.  And  his  answer  now  assumes  that  both  Gentiles  and 
Jews  have  felt  this  need,  yet  neither  knew  how  to  obtain  it.  The 
Gentiles  have  groped  for  it  in  the  dark,  not  knowiiig  how  to  seek 
21 


3->3  EXPOSITION. 

it,  and  Pmil  snys  they  can  Iiardly  bo  said  to  seek  it.  Nevertheloss 
the  gospel  lias  opened  the  doors  of  tlie  Church  to  the  Gentik'S,and 
they  now  have  en  masse  (potentially)  obtained  justification,  but  it 
is  justification  from  faith  in  Christ.  The  Jews,  on  the  other  hand, 
liad  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  and  knew  just  what  they  needed ; 
but  they  sought  it  amiss.  They  sought  a  law  of  justification — 
that  is,  a  legal  method,  of  justification — from  works  of  law  ;  and 
Paul  says  tliey  did  not  attain  to  it.  Unlike  Abraham,  who  was 
justified  from  faitli,  tlie.Iows  sought  justification  from  works:  they 
rejected  the  faith  wliicli  would  bring  tliem  to  the  feet  of  Jesus. 
They  stumbled  over  the  Stone  of  stumbling,  tlie  Rock  which 
the  gospel  lias  laid  in  Zion,  Jesus  Christ  the  Messiah;  and  only  he 
that  has  faith  in  him  will  not  be  disappointed  in  his  search 
for  justification. 


CHAPTEE    X. 


Verses  1-4.  Brethren,  the  desire  indeed  of  my  heart, 
and  my  prayer  to  God  is  in  their  behalf,  that  they  may  be 
saved.  For  I  bear  them  -witness,  that  they  have  a  zeal 
for  God ;  nay,  but  not  according  to  knowledge.  For  ignor- 
ing God's  plan  of  justification,  and  seeking  to  establish 
their  own,  they  did  not  subject  themselves  to  God's  plan 
of  justification.  For  Christ  is  end  of  law  as  regards  jus- 
tification, to  every  one  that  has  faith. 

The  word  brethren  is  addressed  to  the  Romans,  and  not  to 
his  other  "  brethren,"  the  Jews,  of  whom  he  continues,  from  the 
last  chapter,  to  speak  in  the  third  person.  Yet  as  the  Jews  are 
foremost  in  his  thoughts,  and  as  he  is  writing  expressly  about 
them,  and  almost  at  them,  we  may  interpret  his  language  as 
de  facto  addressed  to  them,  until,  in  the  fourteenth  verse,  he  again 
formally  introduces  the  Jew  as  an  interlocutor  in  the  discussion. 

Paul's  desire  and  prayer  is  offered  for  his  people,  that  they 
may  be  saved.  By  this  word  he  does  not  so  much  mean  their 
eternal  salvation  in  the  life  to  come  (though  this  is,  of  course,  the 
ultimate  aim)  as  their  present  obedience  to  the  faith  in  Christ  and 
their  recovery  to  the  Church.  This  he  clearly  shows  in  his  decla- 
ration that  "  When  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  come  in  (into 
the  Church),  then  all  Israel  also  will  he  saved''  (Rom.  xii,  26) ;  and 
he  further  shows  this  in  the  verses  now  following,  in  which  the 
thought  turns  entirely  on  their  unfaith  in  Christ,  from  which  he 
prays  that  they  may  be  saved.  And,  though  they  yet  reject  Christ, 
he  does  not  regard  their  case  as  hopeless,  or  without  redeeming  ele- 
ments. In  the  second  verse  Paul,  himself  a  Jew,  and  thoroughly 
informed  and  candid,  credits  his  .lewish  brethren  with  zeal  for 
God,  a  zeal  such  as  no  other  people  ever  exhibited.  After  their 
return  from  captivity,  five  hundred  years  before  Christ,  and  for  all 
the  centuries  since,  they  have  shown  an  outward  adhesion  to  their 

323 


324  EXPOSITION. 

religion,  and  their  law,  and  their  God,  which  lias  often  amounted 
to  fanaticism.  But  tlieir  zeal,  Paul  adds,  was  not  in  accordance 
with  tlie  higher  spiritual  concei)ts  of  God  or  of  vital  religion. 
Tlu'ir  blind  devotion  to  tlie  Law  of  Moses,  the  law  of  rites  and 
ceremonies,  kept  them  frona  recognizing  that  in  Christ,  who  is  the 
substance,  all  these  things,  which  were  only  shadows,  were  fulfilled. 

Such  is  the  good  trait  with  which  Paul  credits  his  people: 
they  were  zealous  for  their  God.  Yet  in  the  third  verse  he  charges 
the  Jews  with  willful  and  stubborn  self-blindness  to  the  truth  and 
claim  of  the  gospel.  The  word  that  Paul  uses  does  not  mean,  as 
the  Authorized  and  Revised  give  it,  that  the  Jews  were  ignorant, 
for  that  would  plead  in  their  belialf ;  but  that,  knowing  the  truth 
very  well,  they  deliberately  ignored  it.  (Cf.  Rom.  ii,  4.)  They 
knew  their  own  scriptures,  they  knew  the  story  of  Abraham  (Gen. 
XV,  6),  they  knew  God's  method  of  justification  from  faith;  but 
they  were  wedded  to  their  conceit  of  acceptability  with  God  from 
works,  and  they  sought  to  establish  their  acceptance  with  him  by 
their  "  tithing  of  mint  and  cummin  to  the  neglect  of  the  weightier 
matters  of  judgment,  mercy,  and  faith"  (Matt,  xxiii,  23);  and 
they  did  not  submit  themselves  to  God's  method  of  justifi- 
cation from  faith. 

But  tlie  j)oint  which  Paul  makes  here  is,  that  this  faith  from 
which  justification  comes,  is  specifically  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Paul  is  more  copious  and  explicit  on  this  point  than  on  any  other 
in  "  his  gospel."  He  declared  to  Cephas  that  without  Christ  there 
is  no  justification:  "  Knowing  that  man  is  not  justified  from  works 
of  law,  but  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  we  [the  Jews]  exercised 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  order  that  we  may  be  justified  from  faith 
in  Christ,  and  not  from  works  of  law:  because  from  works  of  law 
will  no  flesh  be  justified."     (Gal.  ii,  16.) 

In  attacking  the  fourth  verse  we  must  notice  that  the  words 
tAos  vbfjuov  are  both  without  the  article,  and  can  not  be  made  defi- 
nite, as  in  the  Authorized  and  Revised,  "  the  end  of  the  law,"  but 
must  be  given  abstractly,  in  the  most  general  terms,  end  of  la'w. 
The  meaning  of  the  words  is  a  much  debated  point ;  but  the  apos- 
tle's line  of  thought  determines  their  meaning  and  the  exegesis  of 
the  verse.  Some  interpret  the  verse  to  mean  that  Christ  is  the 
fnlJiUmcnt  of  the  Law.  Doubtless  "  law"  and  "  the  Law"  had  for 
their  aim  the  justification  of  man,  and  doubtless  Christ  accom- 
plished this  aim  of  law  by  his  atonement ;  but,  while  this  is  true  in 
itself,  it  does  not  fall  into  line  with  the  apostle's  thought  in  verse  3. 


R03LiNS  X.    5-10.  325 

That  verse  names  (as  we  saw  before,  Rom.  iv,  2,  3)  two  conceiv- 
able, but  incompatible,  methods  of  justitication— one  from  works, 
one  from  faith.  In  the  fourth  verse  Paul  affirms  that  practically 
the  first  is  now  abolished.  Christ's  vicarious  death  has  put  an 
"end"  to  justification  from  works,  the  boasted  reliance  of  the 
Jews.  "Christ  is  the  end  (rAos)  [the  finality,  or  termination]  of 
law,  so  far  as  concerns  justification,  to  every  one  that  has  faith." 

The  last  words  put  everything  and  every  man  on  the  gospel 
basis.  Justification  with  God  is  no  longer  from  works  (if  it  ever 
was,  as  the  Jews  thought)  ;  and  it  is  no  longer  limited  to  the  Jews 
(as  they  arrogated  to  themselves) ;  but  every  one,  Gentile  as  well 
as  Jew,  who  has  faith  in  Christ,  comes  within  the  provision  of  the 
gospel.  And  we  may  put  all  Gentiles  en  masse,  potentially,  in  this 
class.  The  Jews  en  masse  vacate  their,  place  in  the  Church ;  the 
Gentiles  en  masse  come  in  into  their  place,  if  not  in  their  stead. 

Verses  5-10.  For  Moses  describes  the  justification 
which  is  from  law,  that  the  man  who  has  done  these 
thing's  will  have  life  in  it.  But  the  justification  from  faith 
says  thus :  Say  not  in  thy  heart.  Who  will  ascend  into 
heaven?  (that  is,  to  bring-  Christ  down);  or,  Who  will  de- 
scend into  the  abyss?  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  up  from  the 
dead).  Nay,  but  what  says  it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart ;  (that  is,  the  word  of  the  faith, 
which  [word]  we  preach).  Because  if  thou  profess  with 
thy  mouth  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  have  faith  in  thy  heart  that 
God  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  wilt  be  saved  ;  for  with 
the  heart  faith  is  exercised  unto  justification  ;  but  with  the 
mouth  profession  is  made  unto  salvation. 

The  critical  editions  of  the  Greek,  and  the  Revised,  give  the 
fifth  verse,  "  Moses  writes  that  the  man  who  has  done  the  justifi- 
cation which  is  from  law,  will  live  in  it  (justification").  These 
words  may,  perhaps,  have  a  meaning;  but,  first,  they  are  not  the 
words  of  Paul.  Paul  nowhere  else  uses  the  expression  "  to  do 
justification,"  or  even,  as  the  Revised  translates,  "to  do  right- 
eousness." Besides,  Paul  never  gives  the  word  diKaioffOvr],  the 
general  ethical  sense  of  "righteousness."  Secondly,  the  words 
which  tliis  sentence  attributes  to  Moses,  ai-e  not  his.  What  lie  did 
say,  is,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes,  and  my  judgments  ;  which  if 
a  man  do,  he  will  live  in  them."  (Lev.  xviii,  5.)  With  this  accords 
the  received  text  of  this  verse  in  the  Greek  Testament,  and  the 


320  EXPOSITION. 

Authorized  translation  ;  and  I  adopt  this  reading  without  hesita- 
tion, as  being  Greeii,  as  being  true  to  the  words  of  Moses,  and  as 
having  an  intelligible  meaning. 

The  passage  as  it  stands  in  Leviticus  describes  the  method  of 
justification  from  works.  A  man  must  do  the  things  which  the 
law  commands,  "  which  if  he  do,  he  will  live  in  them ;"  that  is, 
he  will  have  life  eternal  as  the  wages  for  his  obedience.  But 
strictly  this  is  only  an  imaginary  case.  Moses  certainly  did  not 
mean  that  man  could  do  the  works  of  the  law ;  but  only  that  his 
defective  legal  service  w'ould  be  supplemented  by  the  provisions 
of  grace  and  pardon  for  the  contrite  believer,  mediated  to  him  by 
faith,  not  by  works.  Such  was  the  working  scheme  under  the  Old 
Dispensation  ;  and  Paul  who  is  discussing  with  the  Jew  the  abstract 
and  rigorous  difference  between  Jewish  justification  from  works, 
and  Christian  justification  from  faith,  necessarily  interprets  the 
woi"ds  of  the  Law  in  this  strictest  legal  sense.  No  man  does  the 
works  of  law ;  no  man  earns  life  as  the  reward  of  obedience. 
"  From  works  of  law  will  no  man  be  justified."  (Gal.  ii,  16.)  And 
so  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  this  method  of  justification  from 
works  is  out  of  the  question. 

The  sixth  verse  brings  forw^ard  the  other  alternative,  the 
justification  from  faith.  The  apostle  personifies  justification 
and  lets  it  state  its  own  conditions:  "Justification  thus  says." 
To  do  this,  he  quotes  from  a  striking  passage  in  Moses'  last  address 
to  the  Children  of  Israel,  in  wiiich  the  great  lawgiver  teaches 
them  that,  to  the  believei",  God's  law  is  not  hard,  nor  far  off.  I 
quote  so  much  of  Moses'  words  as  involves  this  thought:  "The 
commandment  is  not  hard  for  thee,  nor  is  it  far  off.  It  is  not  in 
heaven,  that  thou  shouldst  say,  AVho  shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven, 
and  bring  it  to  us,  that  we  may  do  it  f  Nor  is  it  beyond  the  sea, 
that  thou  shouldst  say,  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and 
bring  it  to  us,  that  we  may  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very  nigh  thee, 
in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it."  (Deut. 
XXX,  11-14.)  The  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is  conceived  from  the 
standpoint  of  law,  of  something  to  be  done,  "that  we  may  do  it;" 
and,  in  itself,  might  be  cited  on  the  side  of  justification  from 
works.  But  it  is  so  evangelical  in  its  tone,  that  Paul  easily  appro- 
priates it  to  express,  with  his  running  comment,  or  interpretation, 
the  Chi'istian  concept  of  justification  from  faith,  which  requires 
no  work,  nay,  which  excludes  work.  In  this  direction,  St.  Augus- 
tine says:  "The  Loi-d  did  not  say,  Go  to  the  East  to  seek  justifica- 


ROMANS  X.    5-10.  327 

tion ;  or,  Sail  to  the  farthest  West  in  order  to  obtain  forgiveness ; 
but  he  said,  I  ask  nothing  of  thee  which  is  not  within  thee." 
(Sermon  III,  De  Martyribus.)  And  Chrysostom  says:  "In  order 
to  obtain  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  it  is  not  necessary  to  expend 
money  ;  it  is  not  required  to  travel  to  distant  lands  ;  nor  to  undergo 
bodily  labors  and  dangers ;  but  an  act  of  sincere  will  alone  is 
required."  (Homily  I,  To  Philemon.)  Penny  Cyclop.,  Vol.  IX, 
157. 

This  triple  saying  of  Moses  looks  undoubtedly  to  legal  obe- 
dience, and  to  justification  from  works.  Paul  does  not  profess  to 
find  Christian  sentiment  in  these  sayings ;  but  he  seizes  on  them 
as  capable  of  Christian  interpretation ;  and  with  his  word  that  is, 
he  introduces  this  interpretation  in  each  case.  He  adopts  and 
adapts  the  words  of  Moses  to  his  own  purpose ;  but  by  this  word 
"that  is,"  he  shows  that  he  goes  beyond  the  expression  and  tlie 
thought  of  Moses;  and,  from  the  Christian  standpoint,  teaches 
that  one  need  not  ascend  to  heaven  to  bring  Christ  down,  or 
descend  into  the  abyss  (the  grave)  to  bring  up  Christ  from  the 
dead  ;  or,  in  general,  to  do  anyxvork  transcending  human  ability.  All 
this  has  been  accomplished  for  man,  and  in  his  stead,  by  the 
vicarious  atonement  of  Christ.  The  word  of  faith  which  we 
preach  marks  out  the  simplest,  the  easiest,  of  means  for  justifica- 
tion,—jtis(  accept  it.  Salvation  is  nigli  you  ;  you  do  not  have  to  go 
one  step  after  it.  Nay,  it  is  closer  yet,  even  than  "  beside  you  ;" 
it  is  in  your  mouth.  Nay,  it  is  closer  even  than  that ;  it  is  in  your 
heart.  Closer  than  this  it  can  not  be,  or  easier  to  reach.  "  Only 
profess,  with  your  mouth,  that  Jesus  is  Lord ;  only  have  faith,  in 
your  heart,  that  God  raised  him  from  tlie  dead  (tliat  Jesus  is  a 
living  Christ,  not  a  dead  man), — this  is  all  you  have  to  do, — and 
you  will  be  saved."  And  the  tenth  verse  repeats  this  as  the  sole 
principle  and  condition  of  the  gospel  plan.  There  is  no  "work" 
required  for  justification,  or  admitted.  "With  the  heart  (affec- 
tions) faith  is  exercised  unto  justification ;  with  the  mouth 
(a  public  declaration  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord),  profession 
is  made  unto  salvation. 

I  have  used  the  word  '^profession"  rather  than  the  word 
"confession,"  as  in  the  Authorized  and  Revised.  There  is  perhaps 
not  much  difference  between  them;  but  to  some  minds  "con- 
fession" might  imply  an  acknowledgment  or  concession  of  some- 
thing at  which  you  blush ;  wliile  profession  implies  a  bold  procla- 
mation of  something  of  which  you  boast.     Paul  avoids  the  very 


328  EXPOSITION. 

appearance  of  slinmefacedness  in  regard  to  the  gospel.    "  God  for- 
bid that  I  should  glory,  save  in  tlie  cross  of  Christ." 

Verses  11-13.  For  the  Scripture  says,  Every  one  that 
has  faith  upon  him,  will  not  be  put  to  shame.  (Isa.  xxviii,  16.) 
For  there  is  no  difference  between  Jew  and  Greek ;  for  the 
same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all,  being  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon 
him;  for  [it  has  been  written].  Every  one  who  shall  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  will  be  saved."     (Joel  ii,  32.) 

The  eleventh  verse  is  quoted  by  Paul  from  Isaiah  ;  the  same 
woi-ds  that  he  had  already  quoted  (Rom.  ix,  33),  "He  that  has 
faith  on  him  will  not  be  disappointed"  (Isa.  xxviii,  16).  Tliis  is 
verbally  exact  to  the  woi*ds  of  Isaiah,  and  expresses  all  that  the 
prophet,  speaking  of  Jews  only,  contemplated  from  his  Jewish 
point  of  view.  But  in  this  place,  the  apostle,  speaking  from  the 
wider  view  of  a  Chri.stian  preacher,  and  with  his  apostolical 
authority,  enlarges  the  saying  by  introducing  the  word  every  one 
(or  all);  Every  one  that  has  faith  will  not  be  put  to  shame. 
The  prophet's  saying,  even  without  this  additional  word,  was 
really  pregnant  with  this  meaning,  but  the  apostle's  enlai-gement 
of  the  saying  now,  unquestionably  makes  the  assertion  ample  to 
cover  the  case  of  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  of  the  Jews.  This  is  the 
point  which  the  apostle  has  under  discussion.  The  old  legal  sys- 
tem of  the  Jews  is  abolished  ;  and  justification  from  works  is  come 
to  an  end.  And  all  men  now  stand  before  God,  with  whom  is  no 
respect  of  persons,  equally  entitled  to  justification  from  faith. 
This  word  "all"  (as  we  have  often  seen)  expresses  the  universal 
embrace  of  the  gospel.  To  the  synagogue  it  was  a  novel  and  unac- 
ceptable teaching;  but  to  Paul  it  constituted  the  very  staple  of 
his  gospel.  The  word  all  is  a  salient  word  in  Paul's  theological 
vocabulary,  and  it  is  always  safe  to  emphasize  it  in  his  writings. 
This  universal  ism  of  the  gospel  is  the  subject  of  this  paragraph 
before  us;  and  in  the  twelfth  verse,  the  apostle  affirms  that  there 
is  no  difference  in  God's  sight  between  Jew  and  Gentile:  "  Tlie 
same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all ;  and  is  rich  in  grace  towards  all  who  call 
on  him."  To  confirm  this  teaching  by  an  additional  Old  Testament 
authority,  he  quotes  further,  from  the  prophet  Joel,  the  last  words 
in  his  startling  prediction  of  the  revolution  in  the  ecclesiastical 
firmament  at  the  coming  of  Christ — the  same  words  that  Peter 
quoted  in  his  speech  at  Pentecost.  (Acts  ii,  21.)  But  Paul  finds 
in  the  Hebrew  of  this  quotation  from  Joel,  what  he  did  not  find  in 


ROMANS  X.    U,  15.  329 

the  quotation  from  Isaiah,  his  own  favorite  word  "  all "  (or  "  every 
one"), — "  For  every  one  who  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
will  be  saved."  (Joel  ii,  32.)  This  word,  of  course,  Paul  inter- 
prets as  meaning  the  Gentile  as  well  as  the  Jew ;  and  he  inter- 
prets the  word  ''Lord,"  which  in  Joel  is  Jehovah,  as  meaning  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Verses  14,  15.  Jew:  How  then  shall  they  [the  Gentiles] 
call  on  him  upon  whom  they  did  not  have  faith  ?  But  how 
shall  they  have  faith  upon  him  whom  they  did  not  hear  ? 
But  how  shall  they  hear  apart  from  one  preaching-?  But 
how  shall  they  preach,  if  they  be  not  sent?  according  as 
it  has  been  written,  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them 
that  bring  the  gospel  of  good  things.     (Isa.  liii,  1.) 

These  verses  are  the  questions  of  a  gainsayer,  and  express  dis- 
sent from  Paul's  declaration  that  whosoever  may  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord  will  be  saved. 

The  first  question  that  arises  in  the  exegesis  is,  Who  are  meant 
by  the  pronoun  they? — "How  shall  they  call  on  him?"  It  can 
not  be  referred  to  the  Jews ;  for  no  one  doubts  that  the  Jews 
called  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  and  had  faith  (though 
not  always  an  evangelical  faith)  in  him.  The  case  of  the  Jews  is 
clearly  not  in  doubt.  It  remains  that  the  questions  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Jewish  objector  refer  to  the  Gentiles:  "  How  shall  the  Gen- 
tiles call  on  him  [Jehovah],  of  whom  they  know  nothing,  and  on 
whom  they  never  had  faith?"  The  point  which  the  Jew  makes 
against  Paul's  universalism  is  historical  and  geographical,  as  if  he 
said,  Judaism  is  confessedly  local,  and  is  limited  in  the  number  of 
its  adherents ;  while  Christianity  claims  to  be  without  limit  of 
place  or  numbers,  and  its  claims  are,  therefore,  physically  impos- 
sible. The  Gentiles  en  masse  can  not  have  faith  in  Christ,  for  they 
never  heard  of  him.  They  never  heard  of  him,  for  no  preacher 
has  ever  gone  to  them.  And  preachers  have  never  gone,  for  they 
have  never  been  sent.  And  the  Gentiles  never  felt  the  joy  of  the 
captive  Jews  in  Babylon  in  welcoming  the  messengers  of  libera- 
tion: "How  beautiful  the  feet  (how  welcome  the  coming)  of  tlie 
messengers  that  bring  us  the  good  tidings !" 

The  argument  of  the  Jew  in  these  verses  is  plausible ;  but  it 
proves  too  much.  In  all  moral  questions  we  must  get  the  general 
truth,  or  meaning,  and  can  not  require  geographical  or  numerical 
exactness  of  fulfillment.    A  general  statement  that  "  Christ  is  the 


330  EXPOSITION. 

Savior  of  all  men"  is  not  invalidated  or  disproved  because  some 
have  not  heard  the  gospel  and  many  disbelieve.  And  so  the  Jevv^ 
has  overstated  the  case.  On  the  Jew's  own  style  of  argument 
Paul  retorts  thai  Judaism  is  a  failure  ;  it  has  not  carried  every  vote 
of  the  Jews  themselves. 

And  this  is  the  answer  that  the  apostle  makes  in  the  next  verse : 

Verse  16.  Paul:  Nay;  but  not  all  [the  Jews]  gave  heed 
to  the  gospel ;  for  Isaiah  says,  Lord,  who  of  us  had  faith 
in  that  which  we  heard?     (Isa.  liii,  1.) 

The  interlocutory  debate  between  Paul  and  the  Jew  continues 
through  these  verses  and  into  the  next  chapter.  Verse  16  belongs 
to  Paul  for  reasons  potent  in  the  text.  The  subject  of  the  verb  in 
the  first  clause  is  the  Jews,  as  is  shown  by  the  question  from  Isaiah, 
in  which  the  Jews  are  represented  as  speaking  in  self-condemna- 
tion over  their  unfaith.  Tlie  famous  fifty-third  chai)ter  of  Isaiah 
has  always  been  interpreted  by  both  Synagogue  and  Church  as 
Messianic.  Yet  the  English  translations  have  not  caught  the 
striking  sense  of  Isaiah's  Hebrew,  which,  written  eight  hundred 
years  before  Christ's  death,  nevertheless  represents  Israel  as  look- 
ing back  from  the  standpoint  of  Christ's  time  and  mourning  their 
unfaith  in  him  as  revealed  in  prophecy:  "Who  [how  few!l  of  us 
had  faith  in  the  announcement  to  us  about  Messiah  ?  and  to 
whom  of  us, was  the  arm  of  Jehovah  revealed?"  The  chapter  is 
so  undeniably  Cliristologic  that  Paul  here  says  that  the  Jews  in 
not  accepting  it  really  gave  no  heed  to  the  gospel.  This  word 
"gospel,"  the  word  which  Paul  here  uses,  ought  not  to  be  diluted 
(as  in  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised)  into  "  good  tidings."  Ob- 
serve, too,  that  in  the  first  verse  of  Isaiah's  Hebrew,  and  in  Paul's 
quotation  from  it,  both  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised  translate 
the  words  "  our  report"  as  if  it  meant  "  the  report  which  we  (the 
prophets)  gave  out,"  instead  of,  on  the  contrary,  "  the  report  which 
we,  the  people  of  Israel,"  heard.  And  this  is  the  charge  which 
Paul  now  brings  against  the  Jews:  they  heard  the  gospel  and  did 
not  hearken  to  its  message:  "  AVho  of  us  (Jews)  had  faith  in  what 
we  heard  ?" 

Verse  17.  Jkw:  Then  faith  comes  from  that  which  they 
[the  Gentiles]  hear;  but  that  which  they  hear  [of  the  gos- 
pel] is  through  preaching  of  Christ. 

This  verse  is  tlie  answer  of  tlie  Jew.  It  substantially  concedes 
Paul's  charge  against  the  Jews;  but  it  does  so  only  to  repeat  the 


ROMANS  X,  IS.  331 

objection  of  the  fourteenth  verse,  that  it  was  impossible  that  the 
Gentiles  should  have  heard  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  The  sense  may 
be  expressed  by  the  following  paraphrase:  "Then  {&pa.,  it  follows] 
that  faith  in  the  gospel  comes  only  from  what  one  hears ;  but  no 
one  hears  of  the  gospel  except  through  the  preaching  of  Christ  by 
his  messengers.  Now,  admitting  that  we  Jews  heard  this  Messianic 
message  of  the  prophets,  yet  certainly,  in  the  physical  nature  of 
the  case,  the  Gentiles  can  not  have  heard  about  Christ,  and  can  not 
have  faith  in  him." 

Verse  18.  Paul:  Nay,  but  I  say.  Did  they  [the  Gen- 
tiles] not  hear?  [They  did]  indeed,  then  [as  it  has  been 
written] : 

Into  all  the  earth  went  out  the  sound  of  them, 
And  unto  the  ends  of  the  world  the  w^ords  of  them. 

(Psa.  xix,  4.) 

That  this  verse  is  Paul's  is  clear  from  the  structure,  the  in- 
ternal evidence,  and  the  connection.  The  apostle  applies  the  quo- 
tation from  the  Psalms  to  all  people  throughout  the  world.  This 
shows  that  the  subject  of  the  verb  in  the  first  line  is  "the  Gen- 
tiles." Paul  takes  up  the  objection  which  the  Jew  has  made  in 
the  fourteenth  verse,  "  How  can  the  Gentiles  have  faith  in  him 
whom  they  did  not  hear  V  and  declares  now  that  the  Gentiles  as 
a  class  {qua  Gentiles]  did  hear  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel — 
not  every  individual  of  them,  it  is  true,  without  exception  (which 
is  the  difficulty  urged  by  the  Jew),  but  that  this  is  the  normal  and 
standing  fact  for  the  Gentile  world.  Already  the  gospel  has  been 
preached  throughout  the  world ;  already  the  apostle  was  able  to 
say  to  the  Colossians,  "  The  gospel  was  preached  to  every  nation 
under  heaven."  (Cob  i,  23.)  The  Jews,  "  the  diaspora,"  had  gone 
to  the  extremes  of  the  Roman  world  ;  and  so  we  read  :  "  In  every 
city  Moses  had  them  that  preach  him."  (Acts  xv,  21.)  And  Paul 
himself  had  preached  in  these  synagogues,  and  covered  all  the 
central  parts  of  the  empire  with  his  Gentile  Churches.  It  was  not, 
then,  an  extravagant  application  to  Ahis  spread  of  the  gospel  which 
he  makes  of  the  words  of  the  Psalm  describing  the  testimony  of 
the  heavens  to  the  glory  of  God : 

"  Their  voice  has  gone  out  into  all  the  earth, 
And  their  words  to  the  ends  of  the  world." 

(Psa.  xix,  4.) 


332  EXPOSITION. 

Verses  19-21.  Nay;  but  I  say,  Did  Israel  not  know 
[this  call  of  the  Gentiles]  ?    Moses,  first,  says, 

I  will  move  you  to  jealousy  at  a  no-nation  ; 

At  a  nation  without  understanding  I  will  anger  you. 
(Deut.  xxxii,  21.) 
But  Isaiah  ventures,  and  says, 

I  was  found  by  the  [  Gentiles]  not  seeking  me ; 

I  became  manifest  to  them  not  asking  for  me.  (Isa.  Ixv,  1. ) 
But  as  to  Israel,  he  says.  All  the  day  long  did  I  spread 
out  my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people. 
(Isa.  Ixv,  2.) 

The  strong  adversative  conjunction  Nay;  but —  is  usually 
found  in  correction  or  rebuttal  of  some  previous  saying.  This 
holds  good  of  the  use  of  the  word  in  vei-ses  16  and  18,  in  which 
Paul  rejects  the  sentiment  just  j)receding.  But  in  the  ninteenth 
verse,  wliere  this  conjunction  comes  in  after  tlie  interruption  of 
the  quotation  from  the  Psalms,  it  is  not  used  in  disproof  of  that 
quotation,  but  resumes  the  disproof  of  the  eighteenth  verse.  And 
so  we  clearly  assign  these  words,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  to  Paul 
as  the  speaker. 

The  point  which  Paul  makes  in  this  paragraph  is,  that  the 
Jews  knew  all  along,  or  might  have  known,  that  the  admission  of 
the  Gentiles  was  foretold  in  their  own  Scriptures.  In  this  direc- 
tion he  quotes  two  decisive  testimonies — one  from  their  great 
lawgiver  and  one  from  their  greatest  prophet.  Paul  says,  "Moses 
is  the  first  witness."  This  great  man,  to  whose  authority  the  Jews 
deferred,  predicts  the  condemnation  and  rejection  of  Israel,  and 
the  call  of  another  people  into  their  privileges.  God,  says  he,  will 
move  his  people  to  jealousy  against  a  people  who  were  as  yet  "  no 
people"  (ecclesiastically),  but  whom  he  will  call  to  be  his  people ; 
against  a  people  who  were  as  yet  "  a  foolisli  people,"  that  is,  idola- 
trous, but  who  shall  be  brought  to  the  true  (xod  and  the  true  faith. 
(Deut.  xxxii,  21.)  This  quotation  from  Moses  applies  to  the  Gen- 
tile world, — the  Jews  must  have  known  this  fact.  And  Isaiah,  the 
evangelical  prophet,  inti'oduces  God  as  saying: 

"  I  was  entreated  of  by  them  that  asked  not  for  me ; 
I  was  found  by  them  that  did  not  seek  me."     (Isa.  Ixv,  1.) 
And  this  passage,  again,  the  Jews  knew  applied  only  to  the  Gen- 
tile world.     Their  Scriptures  plainly  declare  that  the  Gentiles  will 
become  God's  people.     But  what  was  more  offensive  to  Jewish 


ROMANS  X.    19-21.  333 

arrogance,  their  prophets  declare  that  the  Jews  themselves  will  be 
rejected  from  their  place  as  God's  elect  people.  And  this  result 
Isaiah  indicates  in  the  verse  next  following  the  one  just  quoted. 
And  Paul  quotes  this  next  verse  in  its  sadly  logical  connection : 
"But  as  regards  Israel,  he  says,  I  have  spread  out  my  hands  all 
the  day  to  a  rebellious  people."     (Isa.  Ixv,  2.) 


CHAPTER    XI. 


Verses  1-6.  Jew:  I  say  then,  Did  God  thrust  away 
his  people? 

Paul:  God  forbid:  And  [I  so  say],  for  I  am  an  Israel- 
ite, from  seed  of  Abraham,  tribe  of  Benjamin.  God  did  not 
thrust  away  his  people,  which  he  of  old  had  in  thought. 
Or,  do  ye  not  know  what  the  Scripture  says  in  the  story 
of  Elijah?  how  he  pleads  with  God  against  Israel:  Lord, 
thy  prophets  they  killed,  thy  altars  they  dug  down ;  and 
I  alone  was  left  alive,  and  they  seek  my  life?  (1  Kings 
xix,  10.)  Nay;  but  what  sa,ys  to  him  the  answer  of  God? 
I  left  over  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  who  did  not 
bow  knee  to  Baal.  (1  Kings  xix,  18.)  Thus  then  also,  in  the 
present  time,  there  has  become  a  remnant  [of  Israel]  ac- 
cording to  election  of  grace.  But  if  it  is  by  grace,  it  is  no 
longer  from  works;   else  grace  no  longer  becomes  grace. 

The  apostle's  line  of  thought  in  this  chapter  is  not  immedi- 
ately apparent ;  and  yet  it  is  not  vei-y  far  to  seek.  The  di.scussion 
in  the  Epistle,  up  to  tlie  ninth  chapter,  largely  turned  on  the  rela- 
tions of  the  Gentiles  en  masse  to  the  plan  of  God,  and  to  the  Jews 
and  their  prior  call.  That  diseussion  is  now  practically  closed. 
The  Gentiles  have  come  to  the  front,  the  Jews  fall  to  the  rear; 
and  from  this  reversed  standpoint  the  apostle  faces  about  and  now 
discusses,  rather,  the  relation  of  the  inferior  party,  the  Jews,  tothe 
superior  party,  the  Gentiles,  and  the  future  of  the  Jewish  people 
en  masse.  And  these  three  chapters  must  be  interpreted  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  thought. 

The  discussion  liere  turns  on  the  question  of  the  Jew,  I  say 
then,  did  God  thrust  aw^ay  his  people?— that  is,  the  Jewish 
nation  en  masse?  This  is  the  painful  and  embarrassing  question 
which  Paul  now  sets  himself  to  answer.  Undoubtedly  Paul  held 
and  taught  that  when  the  Jews  rejected  Christ,  God  cast  them  ofif ; 

334 


ROMANS  XI.    1-6.  335 

but  by  this  he  meant  only  that  God  liad  canceled  their  call  as  the 
theocratic  people  and  had  suspended  them  from  fellowship  with  the 
Church,  and  further  than  this  he  does  not  go.  In  antagonism  to  this 
teaching,  the  Jew  here  asks:  "Did  God  thrust  away  his  people?" 
He  adroitly  selects  this  verb,  with  its  exaggerated  and  offensive 
presentation  of  the  case,  as  If  it  expressed  Paul's  view  of  the 
matter.  It  is  an  attempt  to  push  the  apostle's  teaching  to  an  ex- 
treme, and  thus  reduce  it  to 'an  absurdity.  The  word  which  the 
Jew  slyly  adopts  would  signify  that  God's  attitude  towards  his 
people  has  become  one  of  aversion,  and  that  he  thrusts  them  from 
his  presence  resentfully,  violently,  finally.  But  Paul  peremptorily 
rejects  this  word  as  a  perversion  of  his  views,  as  untrue  to  his 
own  feelings  towards  the  Jews,  and  as  untrue  to  the  facts  in  God's 
dealings  with  them.  His  prompt  and  emphatic  denial  that  God 
has  thrust  away  his  people  may,  at  the  first  blush,  seem  inconsist- 
ent with  his  sayings  about  the  Jews  elsewhere,  and  even  in  this 
chapter.  Paul  undoubtedly  speaks  of  the  Jews  as  being  hardened, 
as  stumbling,  as  falling  away,  as  being  broken  off  from  the  parent 
stock,  as  being  cast  off;  but  he  also  speaks  of  them  as  "  holy,"  as 
God's  beloved,  as  obtaining  mercy,  as  being  reingrafted,  as  being 
received  back  into  the  Church.  These  views  are  quite  compatible. 
When  Christ  came,  and  the  Jews  rejected  him,  "  God  did  not  thrust 
them  aivay  from  himself,"  but  simply  displaced  them  from  their 
foremost  theocratic  position  and  suspended  them  from  the  Church. 
In  his  general  attitude  towards  them  in  all  the  centuries  since 
that  time,  and  in  his  dealings  with  them  now,  he  acts  towards 
them  as  towards  the  rest  of  the  world.  All  souls  are  God's;  but 
Paul  here  says  that  the  Jews  were,  and  are,  in  a  special  sense, "  his 
people,"  because  they  inherited  special  promises  made  to  the 
fathers,  and  they  were  "beloved  for  the  fathers'  sake."  And 
from  this  point  of  view  he  now  declares  that  though  the  elect 
people,  once  the  theocratic  nation  and  Church  of  God,  has  been 
suspended  from  the  Church  of  Messiah  for  their  unfaith,  and 
though  the  Gentiles  have  come  to  be  the  Church  by  their  faith, 
yet  the  Jewish  people  is  not  "  thrust  off,"  and  disintegrated,  and 
destroyed.  And  this  people,  now  disobedient  and  gainsaying,  as 
once  were  their  fathers,  in  Elijah's  time,  is  still,  as  the  Israel  of 
old,  God's  people,  and  has  yet  a  future  before  it,  in  accordance 
with  God's  plans  and  with  his  promises  to  the  fathers. 

Paul  rejects  the  Jew's  question  and  insinuation:   "Did  God 
thrust  away  his  people?"    His  first  answer  is  for  himself:   God 


336  EXPOSITION. 

forbid!  Tlio  oltiuse  in  tlie  Autliorizcd  and  Revised,  For  I  also 
am  an  Israelite,  does  not  express  the  apostle's  ineiiiiiiig.*  In 
this  sentence  Paul  is  not  alleging  his  own  case  as  a  proof  that  God 
has  not  thrust  away  his  people ;  for  he  does  not  feel  that  the 
matter  needed  proof;  and  if  this  had  been  Paul's  meaning  he 
would  have  called  himself  "  a  Jew."  Besides,  the  Jews  would  not 
have  accepted  him  as  an  instance  to  the  contrary.  His  words  are 
his  protest  against  his  ill-repute  with  the  Jews.  They  hated  him 
as  an  enemy  to  his  own  people  ;  and  he  would  put  himself  right  on 
this  subject.  The  translation  in  the  text  is  correct:  "  God  forbid  ! 
and  [I  say  this  from  out  of  my  heart],  for  I  am  a  loyal  Israelite." 
The  word  "  Israelite,"  which  Paul  applies  to  himself,  was  the  loft- 
iest, proudest  title  that  a  Jew  could  assume  ;  and  by  this  word 
Paul  declares  that  he  still  held  himself  as  one  of  the  chosen  peoi)le. 

His  second  answer  is  for  God  :  God  did  not  thrust  away  his 
people  -which  he  of  old  had  in  his  thought.  God  is  not  a  man 
that  he  should  change.  The  obstacle  is  not  with  God,  but  with  the 
Jews  themselves.  He  has  always  had  his  people  in  his  plans ;  he 
still  counts  them  as  "his  people."  Observe  that  the  expression, 
"his  people  which  he  foreknew,"  determines  beyond  controversy 
that  Paul  here  contemplates  the  Jewish  people  en  masse,  and  not 
as  individuals.  Yet  even  for  them,  individually,  as  for  the  disobe- 
dient Israelites  of  old,  he  stands  all  the  day  long,  with  outspread 
hands,  wooing  them,  yearning  for  their  salvation  in  Christ,  waiting 
till  they  shall  return. 

This  declaration  that  "God  did  not  thrust  away  his  people," 
the  apostle  now  substantiates  by  citing  from  the  story  of  Elijah, 
what  God  said  in  a  similar  historical  crisis  in  the  darkest  day  of 
Israel  (that  is,  of  the  northern  kingdom  of  "  Israel"  where  Elijah 
lived).  The  prophet,  after  his  losing  contest  with  Jezebel,  thought 
the  Church  extinct  except  himself  alone.  lUit  God  declared  that 
his  cause  was  not  lost.  I  left  to  myself  seven  thousand  men 
who  bowed  not  knee  to  this  She-Baal. t    Those  faithful  men 


<■  In  the  common  Greek  phrase  koI  yap  (which  Paul  uses  twenty  times), 
the  first  word  Is  never  an  adverb  ("aLso"),  but  always  a  conjunction 
("and");  and  this  conjunction  serves  to  repeat, /or  onphasis,  what  has 
gone  before. 

+  The  word  for  Baal  here  is  In  the  feminine  gender,  t^  /SdaX.  Some  think 
this  means  the  licentious  goddess  Ashtoreth  (Astarte),  the  Phcenlclan 
Venus.  But  Gesenlus  more  correctly  thinks  that  the  word  Baal,  which  Is 
properly  masculine,  Is  here  put  In  the  feminine  gender.  In  contempt  of  the 
claim  that  Baal  was  a  god;  as  If  the  Divine  voice  said,  "A  </Qt/,  indeed,— a 
she-god!"    This  was  a  common  sarcasm  of  the  rabbis. 


ROMANS  XI.    7-10.  337 

were  the  remnant  of  the  theocratic  nation  and  Church,  after  the 
riffraff  were  sifted  out.  God's  Church  is  not  to  be  estimated  by 
numbers;  he  can  save  by  many  or  by  few.  Only  one  man,  the 
faithful  Elijah,  with  God  behind  him,  may  constitute  the  victo- 
rious nation  and  Church  ;  millions  without  God  are  but  a  no-nation, 
disintegrated  grains  of  sand.  "Even  so,"  continues  the  apostle, 
"  at  the  present  juncture,  amid  the  apostasy  of  the  Jews,  there  is 
left  from  among  them,  a  remnant  of  select  men,  who  can  be 
counted  as  the  real  nation  and  Church. 

"This  remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  are  the 
same  whom  Paul  counted  as  the  real  Church  of  God  among  the 
Jews.  They  are,  in  Paul's  way  of  expressing  it,  "  the  election," 
or,  better,  "  the  selection  ;"  that  is,  the  select  body  of  believers  in 
Christ,  the  true  kernel  left  from  the  winnowing  away  of  the  chaff 
of  the  Jewish  Church.  And  so  Paul  says  in  the  sixth  verse,  that 
their  faith,  and  piety,  and  consequent  acceptance  with  God,  came 
by  grace,  not,  as  the  Jews  fondly  believed,  from  works ;  since  in 
the  latter  case,  the  gospel  system  of  salvation  "by  grace"  can  no 
longer  be  counted  as  "  grace." 

Verses  7-10.     Jew:  "What  then? 

Paul:  What  Israel  seeks  for,  this  he  did  not  obtain; 
but  the  election  obtained  it ;  but  the  rest  were  hardened : 
according  as  it  has  been  written,  God  gave  them  a  spirit 
of  stupor,  eyes  that  they  may  not  see,  and  ears  that  they 
may  not  hear,  until  this  very  day.  (Isa.  xxix,  10;  Deut. 
xxix,  3.)    And  David  says, 

Let  their  table  become  a  snare  and  a  trap, 
And  a  stumbling-block,  and  a  recompense  to  them ; 
Let  their  eyes  be  darkened,  that  they  may  not  see. 
And  their  back  always  bow  Thou  down. 

(Psa.  Ixix,  22;  xxxv,  8.) 

The  question,  "What  then?  is  found  seven  times  in  this 
Epistle,  and  nowhere  else ;  but,  except  in  this  place  and  in  Rom. 
iii,  9,  it  is  found  in  the  fuller  and  more  explicit  form,/'  What  then 
shall  we  say  ?"  The  question  is  controversial,  and  must  be  as- 
signed to  the  Jew.  Here  the  shorter  form  seems  abrupt  and  dis- 
courteous, and  betrays  that  it  is  asked,  not  for  information,  but 
for  disputation  only.  It  is  the  Jew's  impatient  reply  to  the  apos- 
tle's assertion  that  the  theocratic  nation  had  been  displaced,  and 
only  a  remnant  of  select  men  left ;  and  he  asks,  in  bad  spirit,  or 
at  least  in  bad  form,  "What  then  ?"  as  if  he  meant,  "Have  you 
22 


338  EXPOSITION. 

anything  more  to  say  against  us  Jews?"  The  apostle's  answer  is 
cloar.  Ho  has  just  said,  in  tht>  fourth  verse,  that  the  Israel  of 
Elijah's  day  had  lai)sed  frona  their  fidelity  until  only  seven  thou- 
sand were  left  to  be  counted  in  God's  Church.  So  now,  he  says, 
the  Israel  of  the  present  day  have  missed  the  object  of  their 
search  (justification  befoi'e  God),  and  only  "  the  election,"  the 
"select  remnant"  of  Paul's  own  times,  has  attained  to  it.  This 
Christian  remnant  of  Paul's  time  was  doubtless  larger  than  the 
remnant  of  Elijah's  time,  and  contained  "many  ten  thousands  of 
the  Jews  who  believed"  (Acts  xxi,  20);  but  it  was,  after  all,  dis- 
couragingly  small  in  comparison  with  the  ten  millions  of  the  Jewisii 
nation  who  did  not  believe.  But  this  small  body  of  select  souls 
aloii'J  obtained  the  justifici'tion  which  the  Jews  at  large  i)ro- 
fessedly,  but  insincerely,  sought  after.  Israel  as  a  people  sought 
justification  from  loorks  of  law;  they  rejected  the  only  means 
whereby  man  may  be  saved.  The  election  alone  obtained  it,  be- 
cause they  sought  it  from  faith  in  Christ.  And  the  apostle  de- 
clares that  the  rest  uf  Israel,  the  great  bulk  of  the  nation,  were 
hardened,  and  blind,  and  deaf,  and  out  of  touch  with  God  and  his 
plan  ;  and  in  conlirmation  of  this  he  quotes,  as  is  his  custom,  the 
testimony  of  their  own  Scriptures  to  their  condemnation. 

Those  quotations  are  marked  with  a  rhetorical  peculiarity, 
common  in  English  and  very  common  in  Hebrew,  in  which  some 
unanticipated  result  of  an  action  is  stated  as  if  the  purpose. 
Thus  Shakespeare  says :  "  The  duke  was  thrust  from  Milan,  that  his 
issue  should  become  king  of  Naples."  (Tempest,  v,  205.)  So  we 
may  say,  "The  Jews  rebelled  against  Rome,  that  they  miglit  be  de- 
stroyed." It  is  thus  that  Isaiah  and  Paul  say,  "God  gave  them 
eyes,  that  they  may  not  see."  Of  course  the  sense  in  every  such 
instance  is  plain  ;  only  people  who  do  not  understand  the  laws  of 
rhetoric,  and  fatalists,  misunderstand.  Prospero  was  banished 
from  Milan,  hut  his  son  became  king  of  Naples.  The  Jews  rebelled, 
and  were  destroyed.  "  God  gave  them  eyes,  yet  they  did  not  see  ; 
and  ears,  yet  they  did  not  hear." 

This  rhetorical  difficulty  in  the  expression  in  the  eighth  verse 
is  easily  removed  ;  but  less  easily  can  we  overlook  the  bitter  senti- 
ment of  the  ninth  verse.  Yet  we  must  hold  that  the  malediction 
uttered  by  the  psalmist  [we  may  safely  hold,  with  Paul,  against 
the  critics,  to  the  Davidic  authorship]  is  the  just  resentment  against 
the  enemies  of  God  and  his  Messiah,  as  represented  by  David. 

Two  verbal  criticisms.    1.  In  the  eighth  verse,  the  spirit  of 


ROMANS  XL    11, 12.  339 

stupor  means  a  sense  or  feeling  of  stupor  or  dumbness  ;  surely  not 
a  "demonic  influence."  2.  In  the  ninth  verse,  the  table  is  an 
expression  for  physical  ease  and  enjoyment.  The  enemies  of  God, 
in  their  satiety  of  good  things,  find  themselves  full.  David  prays 
that  their  gluttony  be  turned  into  a  sudden  trap,  and  a  recom- 
pense to  them  for  their  revelry.  The  word  Thou  in  the  last  line 
of  the  quotation  is  addressed  to  God.  It  is  a  prayer  that  he  would 
crush  his  enemies. 

Verses  11,  12.  Jew  :  I  say  then,  Did  they  stumble  that 
they  may  fall  ? 

Paul  :  God  forbid ;  nay,  but  by  their  fall  is  the  salvation 
to  the  Gentiles,  to  enkindle  them  to  zeal.  But  if  their  fall 
is  the  riches  of  the  world,  and  their  loss  is  the  riches  of  the 
Gentiles,  how  much  rather  w^ill  be  their  fullness  ? 

The  verb  "  stumbled,"  sTrraiaav,  is  not  the  same  as  in  Eom.  ix, 
32,  irpo<riKo\}/av,  but  has  substantially  the  same  meaning.  In  the 
earlier  passage  Paul  says  that  the  Jews  "stumbled  ('struck  their 
foot')  against  the  Stone  of  stumbling"  (the  Messiah),  and  so  fell 
away  from  God.  In  this  verse  the  general  sense  of  the  verb  is  the 
same  ;  but  the  Jew,  who  is  here  represented  as  speaking,  and  from 
his  standpoint,  is  not  so  explicit  as  Paul.  He  asks  in  more  guarded 
terms.  Did  the  Jews  stumble  (trip)?  and  he  does  not  add, 
"  against  Messiah ;"  yet,  as  this  is  the  only  matter  in  debate,  this 
is  the  only  sense  that  Paul  could  attach  to  the  question  about  the 
falling  of  the  Jews.  "Did  they  stumble,  that  they  should'fall  from 
God  ?"  And,  of  course,  the  last  verb  must  be  taken  as  if  it  meant 
"  fall  away  from  God  into  utter  and  hopeless  ruin?" 

And  here,  too,  as  in  the  quotations  in  verses  8  and  9,  we  must 
take  the  word  that,  after  the  Hebrew  usage,  not  as  expressing  the 
Divine  purpose  or  aim  in  their  fall,  but  as  the  unpurposed  and  un- 
desired  result, — "Did  they  stumble,  and  fall  from  God  ?" 

To  this  question,  "  Did  the  Jews  stumble  and  fall  ?"  Paul  says, 
as  before,  "  God  forbid !"  Yet,  as  it  is  plain  from  the  connection 
that  they  did  stumble  and  fall  (that  is,  they  lost  their  place  in  the 
Church),  we  must  understand  Paul's  denial  to  mean  only  that  the 
Jews  as  a  people  had  not  fallen  forever ;  and  the  apostle  confidently 
expects  their  conversion  to  Christ. 

But  though  the  Jews  stumbled  and  fell,  there  were,  notwith- 
standing, in  the  providence  of  God,  some  compensations  to  the 
Church  for  their  loss.    Their  fall  was  the  occasion  (but  not  the 


340  EXPOSITION. 

cause  or  the  menus)  of  great  benefit  to  tlie  Gentiles.  The  opposi- 
tion of  tlio  Jews  (lod  used  to  muke  tlie  gospel  known,  and  attract- 
ive to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  it  consolidated  theGentile  Church 
against  the  arrogance  of  the  Jews."  All  Paul's  Epistles  are  the 
echo  of  the  great  strife.  Paul  declares  that,  By  their  fall  salva- 
tion came  to  the  Gentiles;  yet,  he  does  not  assert,  or  imply, 
the  Divine  purpose,  or  agency,  in  bringing  about  the  fall  of  the 
Jews.  The  Authorized  says,  "  Through  their  fall,"  as  if  to  express 
the  result  of  a  previous  plan,  or  arrangement.  But  this  is  not  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  dative.  Paul  means  only  to  say  that.  By  occasion 
of  the  fall  of  the  Jews,  God  brought  a  great  blessing  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. In  God's  providence,  the  one  result  concurs  in  time  and 
operation,  with  the  other;  but  not  in  any  sense  as  the  result  of  the 
other. 

This,  too,  is  the  only  sense  in  verses  30  and  31.  "  Ye  obtained 
mercy  by  occasion  of  their  disobedience ;"  and  "  By  occasion  of 
the  mercy  shown  to  you,  they  also  may  obtain  mercy ;"  that  is,  in 
the  administration  of  his  providences,  God,  when  the  adverse 
emergency  arose,  nevertheless  worked  out  his  will, — not  as  a 
result  of  a  previous  plan  that  the  Jews  should  fall,  but  witli  an 
efficient  overruling  of  things  that  occurred  against  his  will.  "  He 
makes  the  wrath  of  man  to  praise  him." 

Certainly  it  was  not  in  God's  plan  that  the  Jews  should  reject 
Christ;  nor  was  it  necessary  or  desirable  that  the  Jews  should  op- 
pose the  introduction  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church ;  yet  when 
they  took  this  course,  against  God's  will,  God  instantly  overruled 
their  opposition,  to  the  easier  enlargement  and  emancipation  of 
the  Gentiles  from  the  Jewish  exclusiveness.  This  is  a  purely  his- 
torical statement;  the  Jews  fell;  and  coincidently  with  their  fall, 
and  facilitated  by  their  fall,  the  great  franchise  was  more  fully 
extended  to  the  Gentiles. 

And,  conversely,  there  will  be  another  incidental  result  from 


*The  Incident  In  the  synagogue  at  Antloch  of  Plsldla  Illustrates  the 
constant  attltudf  of  the  Jews  towards  the  Gentiles:  "On  the  coming  Sab- 
bath, almost  all  the  city  was  gathered  together  to  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord.  But  when  the  Jews  saw  the  multitudes  [of  the  Gentiles]  they  were 
filled  with  jealousy,  and  contradicted  the  things  which  hud  been  spoken  by 
Paul.  And  Paul  said,  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  be 
spoken  to  you  first;  but  since  ye  thrust  It  off,  behold  we  turn  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. But  when  the  Gentiles  heard  this,  they  rejoiced,  and  glorified  the 
word  of  the  Lord.  But  the  word  of  the  Lord  was  spread  abroad  throughout 
the  whole  country."    (Acts  xlil,  44-19.) 


ROMANS  XL    13-15.  341 

this  gracious  intervention  of  God.  Paul  sees  that  this  abundant 
extension  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  coming  ages  will,  in 
God's  working,  enkindle  the  zeal  of  the  Jews  to  recover  their  lost 
place  in  the  Church.  This  result,  though  yet  far  off,  Paul  looks 
forward  to,  as  assured  in  the  providence  and  the  grace  of  God. 
The  twelfth  verse  declares,  once  and  again,  that  the  fall  of  the 
Jews  is  the  enrichment  of  the  world,  and  their  loss  th«  en- 
richment of  the  Gentiles ;  but  then  he  also  declares  that  if  the 
loss  of  the  Jews  is  the  enrichment  of  the  Gentiles,  conversely  their 
reception  back  into  the  Church  will  be  manifold  more  a  blessing  to 
the  world. 

In  verse  12,  the  contrasted  words  ifrxTj/xa  (loss,  diminution)  and 
irXiJpwA'a  (fullness,  plenitude)  do  not  express  merely  numerical  loss 
or  gain;  but  here  must  be  taken  in  an  ecclesiastic  sense,  the  defec- 
tion of  the  Jews  to  unfaith,  and  their  full  recovery  en  masse  to  faith 
in  Christ.  The  sense  is,  "  If  the  unfaith  and  defection  of  the  Jews 
inures,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  the  present  advantage  of  the 
Gentiles,  how  much  more  will  their  recovered  faith  and  return  to 
Christ  inure  in  the  changed  circumstances  to  the  advantage  of  the 
Gentiles?" 

Verses  13-15.  But  I  say  this  to  you,  the  Gentiles,  For- 
asmuch, indeed,  then,  as  I  am  apostle  of  Gentiles,  I  glo- 
rify my  ministry,  if  in  some  way  I  may  enkindle  to  zeal 
my  flesh  [my  own  people],  and  may  save  some  from  them. 
For  if  the  casting  away  of  them  is  the  reconciling  of  the 
world,  what  will  be  the  taking  of  them  back,  but  life  from 
the  dead? 

The  verb  in  the  first  clause,  Xiy^,  means  I  say,  not  I  speak, 
which  does  not  express  the  sense  of  the  Greek  verb  here,  or  in 
twenty  other  places  where  the  Authorized  mistranslates  it. 

The  Authorized  translation  in  the  eleventh  verse,"  provoke  to 
jealousy,"  suggests  that  Paul  would  encourage  the  rivalry,  or  even 
the  antipathy,  of  the  Jews.  The  same  verb  in  the  fourteenth  verse 
is  better  translated  by  the  Authorized,  "provoke  to  emulation;" 
yet  it  retains  the  offensive  suggestion  of  racial  antagonism.  The 
translation  in  our  text,  enkindle  to  zeal,  is  correct  for  the  sense, 
and  unobjectionable.  If  I  might  coin  a  word,  or,  rather,  transfer 
the  Greek  word,  I  should  say,  "  enzeal ;"  that  is,  stir  up,  stimulate. 
Paul's  concept  is  that  the  Jews  are  apathetic,  indifferent,  towards 
the  Messianic  hopes  of  their  Church :  and  he  would  rouse  them 


342  EXPOSITION. 

from  their  stupor  and  "  enzeal  "  them  with  a  fresh  religious  fervor 
towards  Messiah,  the  one,  tlie  only  hope  of  tiie  world.  This  is  his 
meaning  in  the  words,  save  some  from  them.  He  does  not 
mean  "save  them  from  hell"  (which  probably  is  not  at  all  in  his 
thought  concerning  his  people),  but  bring  them  to  a  saving  ac- 
knowledgment of  Christ ;  and  it  is  in  this  sense  that,  in  the 
twenty-sixth  verse,  he  declares  that  "  so  all  Israel  will  be  saved ;" 
that  is,  reconciled  to  Christ. 

The  passage  before  us  repeats  the  thought  of  the  twelfth  verse. 
The  apostle  addresses  himself  expressly  to  the  Gentiles — not  only 
the  Gentiles  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  to  all  Gentile  readers 
thi'oughout  the  world.  And  his  remarks,  addressed  to  them  in 
particular,  as  distinguished  from  any  Jewish  readers,  are  an  ex- 
planation of  his  hopeful  views  of  the  future  of  his  own  people, 
and  a  defense  of  himself  for  bringing  into  the  discussion  here  a 
topic  apparently  alien  to  the  main  subject  of  the  Epistle.  But,  as 
he  shows,  it  is  not  alien  to  the  main  subject,  nor  on  a  minor  issue. 
He  declares  that,  as  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  he  can,  in  point  of 
fact,  best  fulfill  his  ministry  by  also  serving  and  saving  the  Jews: 
"  I  [best]  glorify  my  ministry  to  the  Gentiles,  if  by  any  means  I 
may  arouse  the  Jews,  and  may  save  some  from  them."  It  is  his 
thought  that  there  is  really  but  one  organic  Church  of  God,  of 
wiiich  the  Jews  were  the  fii-st  representatives;  and,  though  now 
suspended  from  Church  fellowship,  they  are  still  "God's  people." 
The  apostle  puts  their  relation  to  the  Church  figuratively:  Theirs 
was  once  the  first  loaf  of  the  batch,  and  theirs  w^as  the  whole 
kneading;  theirs  was  the  root  of  the  olive-tree,  and  theirs  the 
whole  tree ;  and  the  Gentiles,  coming  later  into  the  Church,  are 
only  "grafts  upon  this  stock,  partakers  of  its  fatness."  Yt'.  now 
the  interests  of  the  two  peoples  are  together — not  apart.  This  real 
intercommunity  of  interests  of  Gentiles  and  Jews,  notwithstand- 
ing the  present  antagonism  of  the  Jews,  will,  in  God's  plan,  bring 
about  the  final  unification  of  the  Church.  And  this  thought  of  the 
solidarity  of  the  two  races  the  ajwstle  follows  out  to  yet  greater 
length,  and  with  varied  illustration,  to  the  end  of  the  paragraph 
in  the  thirty-second  verse.  This  is  his  thought.  He  has  shown  in 
the  previous  verses  that  the  interests  of  the  Gentiles  have  been 
promoted  in  the  overruling  providence  of  God  by  the  defection  of 
the  Jews ;  and  he  now  affirms  afresh  that  the  interests  of  the  Gen- 
tiles will  again  be  yet  more  promoted  by  the  return  of  the  Jews  to 
Christ. 


R03fANS  XI.    16-21.  .  343 

In  the  fifteenth  verse  the  contrasted  words,  the  casting  away 
and  the  taking  back,  express  notions  of  Church  relationship,— 
almost,  if  not  quite,  the  equivalents  of  our  modern  disciplinary 
terms,  "expulsion"  and  "receiving  back  into  fellowship."  And 
Paul's  thought  is,  as  we  saw  in  verse  12,  that  if  the  expulsion  of 
the  Jews  worked,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  the  great  advantage 
of  the  Gentiles,  "  to  the  reconciliation  of  the  heathen  world  to 
Christ,"  their  reception  back  into  fellowship  will  be  to  the  Gentiles 
a  glad  time,  like  "  life  from  the  dead,"  like  getting  back  one's  dead 
from  the  grave.  "These  our  brethren  were  dead  and  are  alive 
again."  Of  course,  there  is  no  reference  in  these  words  to  the 
final  resurrection  of  the  dead.  The  history  of  the  Church  on  earth 
is  not  ended  with  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  Indeed,  it  is  only 
after  this  joyful  return  of  the  Jews  to  Christ  that  the  full  career 
of  the  Church  on  earth  may  be  said  to  begin.  O  that  the  veil 
upon  their  hearts  may  soon  be  removed,  and  "  that  they  may  look 
upon  him  whom  they  pierced,  and  mourn  for  him  !"    (Zech.  xii,  10.) 

Verses  16-21.  But  if  the  firstfruit  is  holy,  so  also  is  the 
batch ;  and  if  the  root  is  holy,  so  also  are  the  branches.  But 
if  some  of  the  branches  were  broken  out,  but  thou,  being 
a  wild  olive,  wast  ingrafted  in  them,  and  becomest  par- 
taker with  them  of  the  root  [and]  of  the  fatness  of  the  olive- 
tree  :  boast  not  against  the  branches  ;  but,  if  thou  boastest 
against  them  [reflect],  not  thou  bearest  the  root,  but  the 
root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  then,  Branches  were  broken  out, 
that  I  may  be  ingrafted.  Well:  by  their  unfaith  they 
were  broken  out;  but  thou  by  thy  faith  standest.  Be  not 
highminded ;  nay,  but  fear.  For  if  God  spared  not  the  nat- 
ural branches,  not  even  thee  will  he  spare. 

The  word  holy,  which  Paul  here  applies  to  the  Jewish  people 
en  masse,  expresses  a  ritual  or  ceremonial  consecration,  and  not  a 
moral  or  spiritual  sanctification.  A  person,  or  thing,  is  "holy," 
in  this  sense,  when  formally  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God.  It 
is  in  this  sense  that  Paul  uses  the  word  in  regard  to  the  marriage 
of  unbelievers  with  believers.  The  apostle  holds  the  marriage  is 
a  holy  relation;  and  he  says  that  "  the  heathen  husband  is  sanc- 
tified or  consecrated  [the  Greek  word  is  "  holied  "  (hallowed)]  in 
the  Christian  wife  ;  and  the  heathen  wife  is  sanctified  in  the  Chris- 
tian husband  ;  since  otherwise  your  children  are  unclean  ;  but  now 
are  they  holy."     (1  Cor.  vii,  14.) 


34-i  EXPOSITION. 

The  apostle  illustrntes  tliis  consecration  of  Israel,  m  manxr,  as 
"  holy  to  the  Lord,"  by  a  double  figure,  taken  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  figure  of  the  harvest  (or  of  the  emblematic  first  loaf)  ; 
and  the  figure  of  tlie  olive-tree.  Tliose  emblems  of  Israel  are  ex- 
pressive, and  easily  understood.  The  Levitical  Law  commanded 
the  children  of  Israel:  ""When  ye  shall  reap  the  harvest  of  the 
land,  ye  shall  bring  a  sheaf  of  the  firstfruit  of  your  harvest  to  the 
priest;  and  he  shall  wave  the  sheaf  before  the  Lord,  to  be  ac- 
cepted for  you."  (Lev.  xxiii,  10.)  This  oblation  symbolized  the 
consecration  of  the  whole  harvest ;  which  thus  was  constructively 
"holy  to  the  Lord."  Similarly  (or,  perhaps,  it  is  the  same  com- 
mand in  other  words),  the  children  of  Israel  wei*e  commanded, 
"  When  ye  eat  the  bread  of  the  land,  ye  shall  offer  the  L(jrd  a  loaf 
from  the  first  of  your  dough,  for  a  heave-offering"  (Num.  xv,  19); 
and  this  symbolized  the  consecration  of  the  whole  batch,  as  "  holy." 
The  latter  is  the  special  form  of  the  figure  which  Paul  here  adopts 
of  his  first  illustration  in  regai-d  to  the  Jewish  people. 

In  Paul's  figure,  the  batch  of  dough  stands  for  the  people  of 
Israel,  en  masse;  and  the  firstfrmt  (or  first  loaf)  of  the  batch 
stands  for  the  patriarchs  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  As  in  the 
Levitical  symbolism,  the  first  loaf  of  tlie  batch  being  consecrated 
to  God  was  holy,  and  therefore  all  the  batch  was  holy  ;  so  in  Paul's 
figure,  the  fathers  of  the  nation  were  holy,  and  therefore  the  na- 
tion en  masse  was  holy. 

Such  is  the  apostle's  concept  in  regard  to  the  national  conse- 
cration of  Israel  to  God,  a  consecration  which  as  ritual,  and  out- 
ward, is  not  vitiated  or  canceled  by  personal  iU  desert.  Very 
much  in  the  same  way  we  may  say  that  baptismal  consecration  is 
not  vitiated  or  canceled  by  subsequent  misconduct. 

But  though  the  nation  en  masse  is  holy,  by  reason  of  the  con- 
secration of  the  firstfruit,  the  fathers,  to  God,  yet  some  individuals 
are  not  worthy  of  their  standing  in  the  consecrated  or  "  holy  " 
mass  of  Israel,  the  Church  of  God.  And  thus  this  figure  of  the 
batch  of  dough  of  one  uniform  consistency,  does  not  quite  satisfy 
the  apostle's  present  need  to  discriminate  between  those  individ- 
uals of  the  nation  who  come  up  to  the  standard  of  the  firstfruits, 
and  those  who  have  now  been  excluded  from  the  fellowship  of  the 
saints  on  account  of  their  unfaith.  This  need  he  easily  satisfies 
by  his  second  illustration,  the  familiar  figure  of  the  olive-tree. 
The  olive-tree,  in  its  turn,  stands  for  all  Israel,  en  masse ;  but,  un- 
like the  batch  of  dough,  can  be  conceived  of  in  its  several  parts, 


ROMANS  XL  16-21.  345 

root,  stock,  branches,  and  not  in  an  indiscriminate  mass.  The 
root  of  the  tree  (like  the  first  loaf  from  the  batch),  represents  the 
patriarchs,  in  whose  consecration  all  Israel  constructively  shares. 
The  root  is  holy,  and  the  branches,  all  of  them  are  holy. 
Yet  some  of  the  branches  are  practically  very  unlike  the  others ; 
some  are  individually  good,  others  bad.  And  so  in  verse  17  the 
apostle  declares  that  some  of  the  branches  were  broken  out ; 
evidently  the  bad  branches,  and  evidently  on  account  of  their  bad- 
ness. But  this  excision  of  the  bad  branches,  the  bad  members  of 
the  Church  of  Israel,  vpas  not  meant  for  their  destruction;  but 
in  the  way  of  discipline,  and  that,  hopefully,  not  forever;  for  in 
the  twenty-third  verse,  the  apostle  tells  us  that  those  exscinded 
branches  will  be  grafted  in  again. 

Further,  Paul,  by  his  use  of  this  figure  of  the  olive-tree,  puts 
beyond  doubt  what  he  meant  in  the  eleventh  verse:  "^iy  the 
fall  of  the  Jews,  salvation  comes  to  the  Gentiles  "  The  "  fall " 
was  not  the  cause,  or  the  means,  of  "the  salvation;"  the  two 
events  simply  came  at  the  same  time. 

This  figure  of  the  ingrafting  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Jewish 
stock  implies  that  in  Paul's  immediate  view  the  organic  Church  of 
Christ  had  its  root  in  the  theocratic  people  ;  and  that  the  Gentiles 
were  not  original  members,  but  only  late  accessions  to  this  organic 
Church.  This  view  of  the  case  is  true  in  itself ;  but  it  is  only  a 
partial  truth,  and  the  apostle  puts  it  forward  here  so  strongly  only 
the  better  to  present  his  plea  for  the  Jews.  But  elsewhere  he  de- 
clares even  more  strongly  that  the  Gentiles,  all  the  world  at  large, 
were  from  the  first,  even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  in 
God's  thought,  and  that  the  gospel  was,  from  eternal  ages,  or- 
dained for  the  Gentiles;  and  that  the  Gentiles,  therefore,  really 
constituted  God's  first  Church,  though  perhaps  not  in  organized 
form. 

No  one  need  stumble  over  a  presumed  inexactness  of  the 
apostle's  figure  of  wild  grafts  upon  cultivated  stock.  It  was  not 
even  inadvertence  on  the  part  of  Paul ;  and  the  figure  is  valid  for 
his  purpose  either  way.  His  sole  point  is  of  coalescence  of  graft 
with  stock.  He  says,  simply,  that  some  of  the  branches  of  the  good 
olive  were  cut  out  and  scions  from  the  wild  olive  were  ingrafted 
among  the  good  branches,  and  so  became  partakers  of  the  fatness 
of  the  good  stock ;  that  is,  dropping  the  figure,  some  Jews  (alas ! 
the  vast  majority  of  them)  were  excluded,  and  upon  their  exclusion 
the  Gentiles  were  brought  into  vital  relations  with  the  Church. 


346  EXPOSITION. 

The  singular  pronoun  thou  does  not  single  out  some  one  Gen- 
tile more  than  the  others,  but  is  used  collectively  for  the  Gentiles 
en  masse.  This  use  of  the  singular  pronouns  I  and  thou  for  the 
plural  is  rhetorically  sti-ong ;  and  the  woi'ds  are  often  so  found  in 
Paul's  writings.  He  uses  "thou"  predominantly  in  the  second 
chapter  and  "I  "  in  the  seventh.  And  that  the  singular  pronoun 
"I"  is  also  here  used  in  the  collective  form,  for  the  Gentiles 
en  masae,  is  clear  from  the  conditions  in  the  nineteenth  verse: 
Branches  (plural)  were  broken  out,  that  I  (singular  for  plural) 
may  be  ingrafted. 

In  the  eighteenth  verse  Paul  warns  the  Gentiles  not  to  boast 
against  the  branches  that  have  been  cut  out ;  and  adds.  But  if 
thou  art  for  boasting,  reflect,  that  not  thou  bearest  the 
root,  but  the  root  thee.  And  then  he  rebukes  the  Gentile  as- 
sumption "  The  branches  were  broken  out  in  order  that  I  may  be 
ingrafted."  These  boastful  words  of  the  Grentile  are  entirely  too 
arrogant  for  Paul  the  Jew ;  entirely  too  fatalistic  for  Paul  the 
theologian.  This  conjunction  iva,  that,  as  we  have  seen  in  other 
places,  often  expresses,  in  Hebrew  style,  what  with  us  is  really  a 
result  and  not  a  purpose,  and  the  sentence  might  mean  only: 
"They  were  cut  out,  and  we  were  ingrafted."  But  even  this 
milder  view  Paul  barely  accepts;  indeed,  his  word  "Well,  like  the 
same  deliberative  word  in  English  debate,  expresses  only  a  half 
assent,  or,  rather,  denotes  a  decided  dissent ;  and  in  the  next  vei-se 
Paul  puts  the  matter  in  its  true  bearing:  the  two  results,  that  the 
Jewish  branches  were  cut  out  and  the  Gentiles  were  gi-afted  in, 
came  together,  but  without  any  logical,  or  causal,  intci-dependence. 
The  Jews  were  excluded  from  the  Chiirch  by  their  vmfaith 
in  Messiah ;  but  thou  standest  by  thy  faith.  Be  not  arro- 
gant against  the  Jews,  but  humble.  For  if  God  spared  not 
the  natural  branches,  beware  lest  he  shall  not  spare  thee. 

Verses  22-24.  See  then  God's  goodness  and  severeness : 
upon  those  indeed  that  fell,  severeness  ;  but  upon  thee, 
God's  goodness,  if  thou  abide  in  his  goodness ;  otherw^ise 
thou  also  wilt  be  cut  out.  But  those  also,  if  they  do  not 
abide  in  their  iinfaith,  -will  be  ingrafted ;  for  God  is  able  to 
ingraft  them  again.  For  if  thou  wast  cut  out  from  the  tree, 
a  wild  ohve  by  natiire,  and  contrary  to  nature  wast  in- 
grafted into  a  good  olive  ;  how  much  rather  will  these, 
the  branches  by  nature,  be  ingrafted  in  their  own  olive? 


ROMANS  XI.    22-U'  347 

The  words  goodness  and  severeness  do  not  express  subjec- 
tive characteristics  of  God,  but  objective  facts  in  his  administra- 
tion. "  Goodness  "  might  equally  well,  or  better,  be  expressed  by 
"kindness,"  and  "severeness"  by  discipline" — discipline  which  is 
prompt,  yet  not  unkind.  The  first  word  expresses  God's  kindness, 
which  is  not  above  law,  but  in  accordance  with  law,  in  opening  to 
the  Gentiles  the  door  of  faith,  and  in  bringing  them  into  the 
Church ;  and  the  second  word  expresses  the  fact,  or  act,  also 
within  law,  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  the  Church.  In- 
deed, this  act  of  discipline  towards  the  Jews  might  even  more 
properly  be  expressed  by  giving  to  Paul's  Greek  word,  dirorofdav, 
the  literal  and  exact  translation,  "cutting  off" — that  is,  from 
Church  fellowship. 

But  these  acts  and  facts  of  God's  disciplinary  administration 
of  the  affairs  of  men  are  not  final,  but  contingent  as  to  their  re- 
sults, as  always  in  his  government  of  the  world,  upon  the  conduct 
of  the  subjects  of  his  government, — both  those  that  are  the  recip- 
ients of  his  kindness  and  those  that  are  the  objects  of  his  dis- 
cipline. If  men,  now  the  objects  of  his  favor,  prove  disobedient, 
and  do  not  abide  in  his  goodness — that  is,  do  not  meet  the  con- 
ditions of  his  goodness — he  will  cut  them  out ;  and  if  those  now 
under  censure  and  discipline  for  their  unfaith  do  not  abide  in 
their  unfaith,  he  will  again  ingraft  them  into  their  own 
olive ;  that  is,  will  again  bring  them  into  the  fellowship  of  the 
Church. 

To  this  hopeful  expression  and  expectation  about  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Jews,  Paul  adds  the  saying.  For  God  is  able  to  in- 
graft them  again.  This  saying  does  not  express  arbitrary  sover- 
eignty, by  which  God  can  do  anything  that  is  objectively  possible. 
If  it  were  a  matter  of  arbitrary  power,  God  might  as  well  have 
kept  the  Jews  in  the  Church,  as  was  the  expectation  of  the  Jews 
themselves.  It  is  not  Paul's  thought  that  God  is  able,  by  an  arbi- 
trary act  like  this,  to  force  the  will  of  the  Jews,  to  remove  their 
stubbornness,  and  to  change  their  unfaith  into  faith.  God  can  not 
do  anything  that  is  inconsistent  with  a  moral  government.  Nor 
does  Paul  mean  simply  that  God  can  exert  all  persuasive  influ- 
ences and  all  grace  and  forbearance  to  induce  their  conversion  ; 
for  this  is  what  he  is  doing  all  the  time  with  all  men,  the  disobe- 
dient Jews  as  well  as  the  unbelieving  Gentiles.  But  what  Paul 
means  is  simply  this,  that  if  the  Jews  should  change  their  attitude 
towards  God,  and  towards  Christ,  God  can,  consistently  with  the 


348  EXPOSITION. 

principles  of  liis  administration,  chanpc  his  attitude  to\vai*ds  them, 
end  can  again  ingraft  them  into  their  native  stock.  Sucli  is 
Paul's  thought:  God  can  save  Israel.  And  he  waits  with  outspread 
hands  to  do  this.  "  He  wills  that  not  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  men  should  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  in  Christ,  and 
be  saved."  To  this  end  he  ingrafted  the  wild  olive  into  the  good 
olive.  How  much  more  ■will  he  have  mercy  on  his  early 
people,  and  again  ingraft  the  natural  branches  into  their 
own  good  olive-tree?     O,  would  they  but  let  him! 

Verses  26-27.  For  I  w^ould  not,  brethren,  that  you 
should  be  ignorant  of  this  secret,  lest  ye  be  opinionated  with 
yourselves,  that  hardening  in  part  has  become  to  Israel, 
until  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in.  And 
thus  [in  this  event]  all  Israel  w^ill  be  saved,  according  as  it 
has  been  written : 

"Out  of  Zion  will  come  the  Deliverer; 

He  wiU  turn  away  ungodlinesses  from  Jacob. 

And  this  will  be  the  covenant  from  me  w^ith  them, 

"When  I  shall  have  taken  away  their  sins."   (Isa.  lix,  20.) 

The  explicative  conjunction  For  looks  back  to  the  long  pas- 
sage, verses  17  to  24,  in  which  Paul  cautions  the  Gentiles  against 
contemning  the  Jews  because  the  latter  have  fallen  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  God.  Fearing  that  the  Gentiles  may  misunderstand 
their  relation  to  the  Jews,  he  now  reveals  to  them  a  secret,  the 
knowledge  of  which  will  keep  them  humble. 

He  says,  I  will  that  ye  be  not  ignorant  of  this  secret. 
The  woi"d  tivcr-qpiov  (secret)  which  Paul  here  uses,  and  which  the 
English  translators  render"  mystery,"  is  a  good  illustration  of  the 
common  fallacy  that  a  word  must  always  keep  its  original  meaning. 
This  word  is  found  twenty-eight  times  in  the  Greek  Testament; 
and  is  always  represented  in  the  English  versions  by  the  English 
word  "mystery,"  which  reproduces  the  Greek  woi-d,  verbally,  in 
an  English  form,  but  wholly  fails  to  convey  the  meaning.  To  our 
translatoi's,  blinded  by  the  fallacy  above  alluded  to,  this  Anglicized 
woi*d  seemed  the  proper  and  exact  representative  for  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek.  Yet  the  two  words  are  far  from  having  the  same 
meaning.  The  English  word  "  mystery,"  by  a  wide  perversion 
from  its  first  sense,  now  means  something  that,  in  itself,  is  not 
only  occult,  but  is  incomprehensible  to  our  reason,  and  incapable 
of  present  explanation.     The  Greek  word  fivarripiov  means  some- 


ROMANS  XI.    25-21.  349 

thing  secret  (usually  an  esoteric  doctrine),  that,  in  itself,  is  com- 
pi-ehensiblc,  and  if  not  yet  comprehended,  is  capable  of  explanation 
to  the  initiated.  Of  course,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  word 
signifies  a  religious  secret,  or  doctrine,  sometimes  explained, 
sometimes  still  awaiting  explanation,  but  always  in  itself  com- 
prehensible. 

The  word  is  important  enough  to  justify  a  fuller  discussion. 

Paul's  most  frequent  use  of  the  word  is  to  express  the  call  of 
the  Gentiles.  This  is  a  doctrine  which  in  the  early  days  of  apos- 
tolic teaching  was  of  a  secret  or  esoteric  character,  an  advanced 
doctrine,  which  at  first  was  published  only  sparingly  ;  and  perhaps 
was  not  cordially  accepted  at  once  by  any  even  of  the  apostles, 
except  Paul.  Not  even  Christ  ventured,  at  first,  explicitly  to  un- 
fold this  teaching  before  the  Jews  at  large.  He  told  the  twelve, 
"To  you  it  has  been  given  to  know  the  advanced  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  (the  call  of  the  Gentiles)  ;  but  to  others  (the  unspiritual 
Jews)  I  speak  in  parables  (they  are  not  yet  prepared  for  this  open 
avowal).*  (Matt,  xiii,  11.)  But  the  time  for  this  revelation  came 
after  his  death.  "  "What  I  tell  you  in  the  darkness  (in  this  inner 
circle),  tell  ye  in  the  light:  proclaim  it  upon  the  housetops." 
(Matt.  X,  26.)  Paul  was  the  first  one  of  the  apostles  to  compre- 
hend and  to  obey  ;  and  how  gloriously  he  did  it ! 

Paul  has  almost  pre-empted  this  word  "  mystery:"  he  used  it 
twenty-one  times,  and  none  of  the  other  apostles  used  it,  except 
John,  in  the  Apocalypse.  And  Paul  uses  it  almost  exclusively  in 
the  special  sense  above  described.  For  example,  in  this  Epistle,  he 
describes  "his  gospel"  as  being  "  according  to  the  revelation  (the 
making  known)  of  the  inner  doctrine  (of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles), 
kept  secret  in  the  eternal  ages,  but  now  manifested  and  made 
known  to  all  the  Gentiles."  (Rom.  xvi,  25.)  Again,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  this  special  meaning  of  the  word  is 
copiously  developed :  "  The  grace  of  God  was  given  me  toward  you 
Gentiles,  that  by  revelation  the  secret  doctrine  (of  the  call  of  the 


*  Indeed  It  may  be  questioned  whether  a  large  number  of  the  leading 
parables  do  not  turn  on  this  very  point,  the  call  of  the  Gentiles.  What 
other  exegesis  is  so  clear,  for  the  parables  of  the  Vineyard  let  to  Husband- 
men, of  the  Laborers  in  the  Vineyard,  of  the  Prodigal  Bon,  of  the  Two  Sons, 
of  the  Lost  Sheep,  of  the  Great  Supper,  of  the  Marriage  Feast?  The  para- 
bles were  necessary  in  the  first  teachings  of  Christianity.  By  the  time  John 
■wrote,  the  need  of  parabolic  teaching  had  ceased;  and  John's  Gospel  has 
no  parables. 


350  EXPOSITION. 

Gentiles)  was  made  known  to  me  .  .  .  the  secret  doctrine  of 
Christ,  which  in  other  generations  was  not  made  known,  as  it  was 
now  revealed,  .  .  .  that  the  Gentiles  are  partakers  with  us  [Jews] 
in  the  promise  of  Jesus  Christ."     (Eph.  iii,  3-6.) 

There  is  one  passage  in  Paul's  writings  in  which,  at  first  blush, 
the  word  seems  to  have  the  advanced  sense  of  the  English  word 
"mystery:"  "Confessedly  gi*eat  is  the  mystery  of  godliness." 
(1  Tim.  iii,  16.)  It  is  one  of  the  stock  quotations  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  is  usually  explained  as  if  it  meant  "  Great  is  the 
myteriousness  of  the  Godhead  ;"  that  is,  of  the  Divine  nature,  the 
Trinity.  This  may  be  a  true  teaching  in  itself;  but  it  is  not  found 
in  the  passage.  The  fatal  difficulty  is  that  the  word  eixxe^eia,  "god- 
liness," can  not  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  Godhead,  or  Divine 
nature;  but  of  "piety,  religion;"  and  the  word  "mystery  "  must 
keep  its  invariable  sense  of  secret,  inner  doctrine,  and  it  does  not 
refer  to  the  special  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  to  the  general 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  scheme.  These  doctrines,  easily  under- 
stood, are  embodied  in  the  early  hymn  following;  and  the  passage 
means  simply:  "Great  (worthy  of  all  acceptance)  is  the  inner 
doctrine  of  the  religion  of  Christ: 

"  Who  in  the  flesh  was  manifest, 

In  spirit  just  was  shown ; 
To  angel  eyes  he  stood  confest, 

Was  preached  the  Gentiles'  own ; 
On  him  the  woi'ld  has  glad  believed, 
In  glory  now,  on  high  received." 

There  is  one  more  instance  of  this  word  worthy  of  an  explanation . 
In  the  Resurrection  Chapter,  the  Authorized  says,  "Behold,  I  shoir 
you  (point  out  to  you)  a  mystery."  (1  Cor.  xv,  51.)  The  Revised 
says,  "I  tell  (declare)  you  a  mystery."  The  verb  is  better ;  but  the 
meaning  remains  about  the  same  as  with  the  verb  "  I  show;"  and  I 
think  most  readers  of  either  version  understand  the  apostle  as  mean- 
ing, "I  point  out  (or  declare)  the  existence  of  a  mystery."  Thus 
translated,  no  one  gets  the  meaning  of  the  leading  word,  and  above 
all  he  does  not  get  the  logical  connection  of  the  passage.  But  if 
we  translate  the  word,  and  read,  "  I  tell  you  a  secret,"  the  meaning 
of  the  W'ord,  and  the  connection  with  the  following  clause,  becomes 
clear:  "  I  tell  (divulge)  to  you  a  secret  doctrine  (in  relation  to  the 
last  day) ;  we  shall  not  all  sleep ;  but  we  shall  all  be  changed." 

The  frequent  occurrence  (twenty-seven  times)  in  the  English 


ROMANS  XI.    35-27.  351 

New  Testament  of  this  word  "  mystery  "  (always  conveying  to  Eng- 
lish readers  the  sense  of  sometliing  incomprehensible),  inevitably 
suggests  that  Christianity  is  at  least  largely  a  scheme  of  doctrines 
which  are  incomprehensible  by  finite  reason,  yet  demanding  to  be 
accepted  even  without  being  understood.  Christianity  has  many 
distinctive  doctrines  ;  but  it  has  no  characteristic  mysteries  (in  the 
English  sense  of  the  word)  aside  from  those  pertaining  to  the  per- 
son of  Christ  (which,  however,  are  never  called  "mysteries"); 
indeed,  with  this  exception,  it  has  no  mysteries  at  all,  that  are  not 
common  to  it  with  all  the  ethnic  religions  And  if  we  eliminate  the 
misleading  word  "mystery"  from  our  English  Scriptures,  we  go 
far  to  relieve  the  gospel  from  unjust  obloquy  and  from  unju:t  bur- 
dens. In  fact.  Christianity  is  the  simplest,  and  most  reasonable  of 
all  religions  ;  and  it  is  easy  to  comprehend. 

In  the  passage  before  us,  verse  25,  the  apostle  now  reveals 
to  the  Gentiles  a  Divine  secret  that  the  hardening  of  the  Jews 
against  Christ,  which  has  put  them  out  of  favor  and  present 
toHch  with  God,  is  after  all  only  partial,  and  does  not  detract 
from  their  knowledge  of  other  Divine  truth,  or  bate  their  zeal 
for  God  ;  and  above  all  it  does  not  cancel,  in  God's  sight,  their 
original  consecration  to  him  as  "holy."  Though  they  are  under 
his  displeasure,  he  still  regards  them  as  "his  people."  Further, 
the  apostle  declares  that  their  apostasy  from  Christ  is  not  final. 
Their  hardness  will  continue  only  until  the  full  volume  of  the 
Gentile  world  has  actually  come  into  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and 
then  with  this  persuasive  evidence  for  Christ,  and  the  over- 
whelming influence  of  the  conversion  of  the  world,  "all  Israel," 
too,  will  yield,  en  masse,  and  be  saved  to  the  Christian  faith,  and 
the  Church. 

But  a  question  arises  in  many  hearts.  What  of  the  individual 
Jews  who  live  and  die  meantime,  unconverted  to  Christ?  Shall 
we  hope  in  their  final  and  eternal  salvation?  Paul  does  not 
discuss  this  question  at  all,  and  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  are 
silent  on  this  point,  just  as  they  are  silent  in  regard  to  the 
salvation  of  the  heathen  world,  and  on  most  eschatological  points. 
Some  passages  apparently  condemn  all  non-believers  in  Christ 
to  eternal  ruin ;  but  the  drift  of  the  gospel  teaching  is  not  so 
dreadful ;  and  there  are  few  now  who  think  all  heathen  people  will 
perish.  "They  are  saved  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus," 
though  they  know  him  not.  Surely  the  future  of  the  Jews,  who 
fear  God  and  trust  in  his  mercy,  is  much  more  hopeful  than  that 


352  EXPOSITION. 

of  the  heathen  world.     We  may  trust  the  issue  with  God  who 
will  save  all  he  can. 

"  Let  not  our  weak,  unknowing  hand, 
Presume  his  bolts  to  throw." 

Verses  28-32.  As  regards  the  gospel,  indeed,  they  are 
enemies  I  to  it  I  on  account  of  you ;  but  as  regards  the 
election,  they  are  beloved  on  account  of  the  fathers.  For 
the  gifts  of  grace  and  the  calling  of  God  are  unrepented. 
For  just  as  ye  once  disobeyed  God,  but  now  obtained 
mercy,  by  the  disobedience  of  these,  so  also  these  now 
disobeyed,  that,  by  the  mercy  shown  to  you,  they  them- 
selves also  may  now  obtain  mercy.  For  God  shut  up  all 
men  unto  disobedience,  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon 
them  all. 

Out  of  thirty-two  times  in  which  the  word  ^x^pol,  here  trans- 
lated enemies,  is  found  in  the  New  Testament,  thirty-one  in- 
stances are  clearly  in  the  active  sense  of  "  inimical ;"  that  is, 
"  haters,"  hostile.  But  the  commentators  here  think  this  instance 
is  a  single  exception,  and  must  be  taken  passively,  "  hated"  of  God. 
They  reach  this  conclusion  partly  by  assuming  what  is  not  true,  a 
logical  parallelism  with  the  word  beloved  in  the  next  verse, — 
that  both  words  may  be  referred  to  the  same  subject,  God.  Thus 
interpreted,  the  text  represents  God  as  treating  the  Jews,  at  one 
and  the  same  time,  with  mingled  and  all  but  incompatible  feelings 
and  dealings,  he  "hates"  them  and  "loves"  them  at  the  same 
time.  Another  reason,  in  part,  with  the  commentators,  for  adopt- 
ing here  this  passive  sense  of  the  word  "  enemies"  is  found  in  the 
incorrect  sense  which  (following  the  Authorized  and  the  Revised) 
they  give  to  the  preposition  5id  in  the  two  clauses.  These  versions 
translate  5id  i/^aj  "for  your  sakes,"  which  can  mean  only  "for 
your  interests" — that  is,  "for  your  conversion;"  and  this  can 
mean  only  that  God  hated  the  Jews  and  ruled  them  out  of  the 
Church  in  order  to  get  the  Gentiles  in.  This  meaning— "  for  the 
sake  of" — for  this  Greek  preposition  is  so  peculiar  and  so  far- 
fetched, and  so  non-Greek,  that  even  if  it  were  grammatically 
possible  elsewhere  (which  is  at  least  doubtful),  we  must  adopt  the 
usual  sense  of  Sid  with  the  accusative  case,  "  on  account  of,"  to 
express  why  the  Jews  were  "hostile,"  and  why  tliey  were  never- 
theless "  beloved."  Again,  they  translate  5id  toi>s  iraripai  "  for  the 
fathers'  sake,"  which  (seeing  that  the  fathers  are  dead)  can  mean 


ROMANS  XI.    28-32.  353 

only  "  from  regard  for  the  memory  of  the  fathers,"  individually, 
as  men,  instead  of  (which  is  the  correct  meaning)  "because  of 
what  the  fathers  were,"  representatively  ;  namely,  "  the  firstfruit 
and  the  root"  of  the  consecrated  nation. 

This  active  meaning  of  "  enemies,"  as  "  haters  of  the  gospel," 
is  quite  certainly  the  one  that  Paul  had  in  his  mind  ;  and  it  does 
not  involve  mixed  and  incompatible  feelings  towards  the  Jews  on 
the  part  of  God.  The  sentence  means  that  the  Jews  are  hostile 
(to  the  gospel)  on  account  of  the  Gentiles,  and  not  that  God  is 
hostile  to  the  Jews.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  "  God's  beloved  ;" 
and  Paul  s  thought  in  this  verse  is  briefly:  "  The  Jews  are  hostile 
to  God  ;  God  is  loving  to  the  Jews  "  First :  So  far  as  the  gospel 
is  concerned,  the  Je^ws  are  enemies  to  it,  on  account  of  you, 
the  Gentiles ;  that  is,  on  account  of  the  admission  of  tiie  Gen- 
tiles into  the  Church.  Secondly:  But  so  far  as  regards  the 
election  [the  original  choice]  of  the  theocratic  people  (which  still 
holds  good  for  the  Jews  en  masse),  they  are  God's  beloved,  on 
account  of  the  fathers."  Paul  might  well  have  embodi<}d  his 
sentiment  in  the  expressive  words  of  Moses  to  Israel:  "  Th(!  Lord 
had  a  delight  in  thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chose  their  seed 
after  them,  as  it  is  this  day."     (Deut.  x,  15.) 

The  word  for  in  the  saying,  "For  God's  gifts  of  grace  are 
urirevoked,"  looks  back  to  the  word  "beloved  ,"  and  the  apostle, 
with  the  idea  of  that  word  in  his  mind,  declares  that  God  has  not 
changed  his  feelings  towards  the  Jews,  nor  repented  of  his  gra- 
cious gifts  to  them.  The  Jews  ai-e  still  "  holy,"  and  beloved  on 
account  of  the  consecration  of  the  fathers. 

Again,  the  word  for  in  the  thirtieth  verse  looks  back  to  the 
gracious  attitude  and  purpose  of  God  as  shown  in  the  twenty- 
ninth  verse.  In  view  of  the  irrevocaWe  calling  of  the  Jews  the 
apostle  declares  that  just  as  the  Gentiles  once  disobeyed  God,  yet 
obtained  mercy  by  (upon  the  occasion  of)  the  disobedience  of  the 
Jews,  so  in  their  turn  the  Jews,  by  (upon  the  occasion  of)  the 
mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles,  may  themselves  eventually  obtain 
mercy.  It  is  Paul's  thought  that  the  mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles, 
which  will  be  illustrated  yet  more  fully  in  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentile  world  en  masse,  will  stimulate  the  zeal  of  the  Jews,  and 
bring  them,  too,  en  masse  to  accept  Christ  and  be  saved  to  the 
Church. 

The  word  for  in  the  thirty-second  verse  points  back  to  the  state- 
ment in  the  two  preceding  verses,  in  which  the  apostle  sums  u\)  the 
23 


354  EXPOSITION. 

religions  history  of  both  the  Gentiles  and  the  Jews  ;  and  declares  as 
one  side  of  their  history,  that  disobedience  was  a  fact,  perhaps  tiie 
leading  fact,  common  to  them  both,  yet  attaching  to  eacli  race  in 
its  own  time,  and  sphere,  and  way.  Nothing  turns  on  the  time  of 
the  disobedience  ;  but  the  apostle  notes  tlieir  equal  disobedience. 
And  this  gives  him  occasion  to  say  that  God  treats  them  all  with 
equal  condemnation,  and  with  equal  mercy.  The  saying  that  God.  - 
shut  up  all  men  unto  disobedience,  seems,  at  first  blush,  to 
mean  that  God  restricted  men  to  this  result,  without  any  alterna- 
tive on  their  part.  But  we  can  not  make  Gotl  the  author  of  sin. 
This  same  verb  is  used  elsewhere  without  this  necessitarian  mean- 
ing. In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Paul  says,  "  The  Scriptures 
shut  up  all  things  under  sin — we  were  sliul  up  unto  faith"  (Gal. 
iii,  22)  ;  where  the  sense  is  simply,  that  the  Scriptures  counted  all 
men  under  sin,  in  order  that  the  promise  by  faith  may  be  given 
to  men  of  faith;  but  that  before,  we  were  in  ward  under  law, 
restricted  to  faith,  for  our  only  hope  of  justification.  There  is  no 
sovereign  decree  of  God,  but  only  the  voluntary  actions  of  men. 
In  the  same  way  we  must  explain  our  text,  "God  counted  all  men 
as  given  up  to  disobedience ;  yet  counted  them  thus,  not  that  he 
may  condemn  them  all,  but  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon  them 
all.  The  date  of  this  condemnation,  and  intention  of  mercy  is 
fixed  by  the  aorist  tense  of  the  verb,  "he  included  them,"  as  in 
the  counsels  of  eternity,  when  he  foresaw  the  fall  of  man,  and  also 
made  provision  to  have  mercy  on  them. 

With  these  words,  Paul  has  now  finished  the  doctrinal  part  of 
his  work.  He  has  vindicated  his  rightful  place  as  the  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles;  and  has  vindicated  their  right  to  an  original,  equal, 
and  final  place  in  the  Church  with  the  Jews,  who  claimed  to  be 
the  only  Church;  and  has  vindicated  God's  plan  of  justillcation 
from  faith,  instead  of  from  works  as  maintained  by  the  Jews;  ana 
he  has  shown  that  the  Jews  have  no  racial  and  no  personal  supe- 
riority over  the  Gentiles;  and,  finally,  has  shown  that  the  Jews, 
by  their  unfaith  in  Christ,  have  forfeited  their  fellowship  in  the 
Church,  though  still  with  a  latent  title  by  virtue  of  their  first  call, 
to  be  reinvested  with  this  forfeited  privilege  when  they  shall  come 
back  to  Christ. 

Such  are,  in  brief,  the  matters  which  have  been  discussed  in 
the  part  of  the  Epistle  now  concluded.  Issues  more  weighty,  more 
momentous  than  these  here  discussed  and  settled,  there  are  none 
in  the  theology  of   the  Bible    or  in  the  history  of  dogma.     The 


ROMANS  XI.    33-36.  355 

eleven  chapters  which  we  have  now  gone  over  constitute,  more 
than  all  the  other  epistles,  the  text-book  of  the  Christian  pulpit, 
and  of  the  theological  schools,  and  of  all  writers  on  doctrine. 

Tlie  rest  of  tliis  Epistle  is  occupied  with  the  discussion  of  the 
practical  issues  which  emerged  in  the  early  days  of  the  Christian 
Church  at  large,  or  were  of  local  moment  in  the  Church  at  Rome. 

Verses  33-36.  O  depth  of  riches  and  wisdom,  and 
knowledge  of  God !  How  unsearchable  his  judgment  and 
untraceable  his  ways  ! 

For  who  knew^  the  mind  of  Jehovah  ? 

Or  w^ho  became  his  counselor? 

Or  who  first  gave  to  him? 

And  it  will  be  repaid  him.     (Isa.  xl,  13.) 

Because  from  him,  and  through  him,  and  unto  him, 
are  all  things. 

To  him  be  the  glory,  forever;  Amen. 

Witli  these  words  Paul  closes  this  part  of  his  epistle.  The  first 
verse  is  his  burst  of  praise  and  amaze  over  tlie  wonderful  pro- 
fundity, and  the  wonderful  richness  and  wisdom  and  knowledge 
shown  in  God's  purposes  and  plans,  and  ways  for  man's  salvation. 
Tlie  quotation  from  Isaiah,  in  tlie  form  of  an  argumentative 
question,  re-enforces  the  thought  that  the  gospel  is  from  God 
alone.  He  devised  it,  he  executed  it,  his  own  arm  has  gotten  him 
the  victory.  No  one  knew  Jehovah's  mind ;  no  one  became  his 
adviser ;  no  one  has  given  aught  to  complete  God's  work ;  no  one 
has  any  claim  to  reward  for  co-operation. 

~  And  the  concluding  verse  reiterates  this  thought  in  words  so 
simple,  so  beautiful,  so  comprehensive,  that  they  have  become  the 
world's  model  for  compactness  and  strength.  Lincoln's  famous 
aphorism,  whicli  will  go  down  the  centuries  as  the  vollied  embodi- 
ment of  the  only  wise  political  science,  is  strong  and  memorable 
because  it  borrows  its  form  and  its  force  from  the  saying  of  the 
apostle:  "The  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 
the  people,  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth." 


CHAPTER   XII. 


Verses  1,  2.  I  exhort  you,  therefore,  brethren,  through 
the  mercies  of  God,  to  present  your  bodies  a  sacrifice, 
Uving,  holy,  well-pleasing  to  God,  your  rational  service. 
And  do  not  be  in  fashion  with  this  age  ;  nay,  but  be  trans- 
formed by  the  renewal  of  your  mind,  to  the  end  that  you 
may  prove  what  is  the  good,  and  well-pleasing,  and  com- 
plete will  of  God. 

We  come  now  within  the  sphei*e  of  practical  religion ;  or  of 
morals  applied  to  the  every-day  life  of  the  Church.  In  these 
chapters  Paul  discusses  the  outward  behavior  of  men,  especially 
to  others,  and  not  their  forensic  relations  to  law,  and  not  their 
subjective  belief  or  experiences.  Of  course,  the  two  lines  of  re- 
ligious thought  and  of  religious  life,  of  doctrines  and  of  precepts, 
often  touch  and  sometimes  seem  to  cover  the  same  field ;  but 
they  run  on  different  plans,  and  seek  different  ends.  The  theology 
of  the  Creed,  or  doctrinal  religion,  which  is  found  in  part  in  the 
first  part  of  this  Epistle,  declares  the  relations  of  men  with  God  ; 
the  theology  of  morals,  or  preceptive  religion,  which  is. found  in 
part  in  the  chapters  following,  declares  the  relations  of  men  with 
each  other. 

The  points  discussed  in  these  five  chapters  are  fewer  than  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  which  touch  on  all  the  practical 
relations  of  Church,  family,  and  social  life.  The  few  points  that 
Paul  here  names,  spring  almost  exclusively  out  of  the  mixed  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  community  at  Rome, — partly  Gentile,  and 
partly  Jew.  We  know  that  feelings  of  racial  jealousy,  and  matters 
of  doctrinal  debate  were  rife  in  all  che  mixed  Churches  of  the  first 
century.  Reference  to  this  condition  of  things  is  found  in  the 
Acts,  and  in  most  of  the  Epistles  ;  and  tlie  fact  that  Paul  addressed 
such  a  letter  as  this  to  the  Roman  Church,  discussing  the  great 
controversial  issues  between  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles ;  and  the 

856 


ROMANS  XII.    1,  2.  357 

further  fact  that  in  these  supplementary  chapters,  he  introduces 
these  practical  niattei'S,  prove  that  the  Gentiles  and  the  Jews  in 
the  Church  at  Rome,  were,  if  not  openly  dissident,  at  best  only  in 
armistice. 

These  points  of  caution,  or  apostolical  precept,  may  be  grouped 
under  certain  heads. 

1.  In  chapter  xii:  Forbearance  towards  one  another,  and  ab- 
stinence from  self-assertion, .or  vainglorying  in  matters  of  Church 
prominence,  and  tlie  exercise  of  spiritual  gifts. 

2.  In  chapter  xiii:  Deference  to  civil  authorities  and  obedience 
to  law. 

3.  In  chapter  xiv:  Toleration  of  the  scruples  of  others,  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  in  matters  of  ritual,  foods,  times,  and  persons. 

4.  In  chapter  xv:  Exhortations  to  unity  among  themselves, 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  Christ;  and  a  defense  of  himself  as  "  minis- 
ter of  Christ  unto  the  Gentiles." 

5.  In  chapter  xvi :  His  salutations  to  his  many  friends  in  the 
Church. 

In  the  first  verse  before  us  the  conjunction  therefore  looks 
back  to  the  discussion  in  the  previous  chapter,  where  the  apostle 
shows  that  in  the  gospel  plan  the  racial  jealousy  and  the  doc- 
trinal differences  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile  are  finally 
reconciled.  "Both  disobeyed  God;  and  God  has  now  had  mercy 
on  them  all."  These  are  the  mercies  (or,  more  literally,  "  the 
compassions")  through  which  the  apostle  appeals  to  the  Romans. 
Some  of  these  Romans  were  Jews,  once  accustomed  to  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial  (still  glorious  and  impressive)  at  Jerusalem ;  some 
were  Gentiles,  once  accustomed  to  the  splendid  idolatry  of  heathen 
temples  at  Rome ;  but  they  are  now  no  longer  Jewish  ritualists, 
no  longer  heathen  idolaters,  but  believers  in  Christ.  And  he  be- 
seeches them,  as  believers  in  Christ,  no  longer  to  offer  mere  dumb 
animals,  the  unavailing  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  rite,  or  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  heathen  superstition,  but  to  offer  themselves  to  God, 
their  own  persons,  living,  holy,  well-pleasing,  a  rational  sac- 
rifice. This  sacrifice  of  themselves,  whicli  Paul  calls  rational  (or 
reasonable),  is  the  only  kind  of  sacrifice  which  a  rational  (or  rea- 
soning) worshiper  can  now  render  to  the  Infinite  Spirit.  And  it 
may  be  offered  without  the  intervention  of  priest,  or  altar,  or  shed 
blood,  by  any  one,  at  any  hour,  at  any  place.  Accordingly,  in  the 
next  verse,  Paul  exhorts  the  Romans,  once  addicted  to  the  old 
routine  of  the  Levitical  rite,  or  to  the  gross  sacrifices  and  orgies 


358  EXPOSITION. 

of  the  heathen  superstition,  no  longer  to  fashion  themselves  to 
tlie  iinmoiuiing  mummeries  of  the  present  age,  but  by  the  renewal 
of  tlu'ir  mind  to  test  wliat  is  God's  will  concerning  them,  the  will 
that  is  good,  and  well-pleasing,  and  perfect. 

Verses  3-5.  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  that  was 
given  me,  to  every  one  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think 
of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think ;  but  so  to 
think  [of  himself  ]  as  to  think  soberly,  as  to  each  one  God 
apportioned  a  measure  of  faith.  For  according  as,  in  one 
body,  we  have  many  members,  but  the  members  have  not 
all  the  same  office ;  thus  we,  the  many,  are  one  body  in 
Christ,  but  severally  members  of  one  another. 

Tlie  third  verse  is  an  excellent  illustration  of  Paul's  frequent 
plays  on  words.  The  literal  translation  runs  as  follows:  " —  Be 
not  high-mrvtdetZ  beyond  what  it  behooves  to  be  minded;  but  mind 
to  be  sound-?/uudecZ." 

The  paragraph  before  us,  vphile  not  inappropriate  to  the  Jews, 
more  naturally  pertains  to  the  Gentile  members  of  the  Churcli  at 
Rome,  who  were  doubtless  in  the  majority,  and  held  most  of  the 
Church  offices  and  enjoyed  most  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  And  as  we  have  seen  in  the  previous  chapter  (verses 
13,  25),  the  apostle  felt  it  necessary  to  caution  the  Gentiles,  as  the 
dominant  party,  against  being  conceited,  so  now  he  resumes  the 
role  of  admonition,  and  warns  them  to  think  of  themselves  soberly 
and  to  behave  themselves  towards  their  brethren  in  a  conciliatory 
and  generous  spirit.  We  do  not  know,  indeed,  that  the  miraculous 
charisms  of  the  apostolic  era  had  yet  been  conferred  on  any  of 
the  Roman  Christians ;  but,  as  many  members  of  this  Cliurch  had 
come  from  the  provincial  Churches  established  by  Paul,  where 
these  gifts  had  doubtless  prevailed,  they  had  doubtless  brought 
these  endowments  with  them.  Nor  do  we  know  that  the  rivalries 
and  bickerings  which  i)revailed  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  among 
those  endowed  with  miraculous  charisms  also  prevailed  at  Rome. 
But  the  admonitions  which  Paul  here  addresses  to  them  leave  us 
little  room  to  doubt.  These  gifts  or  endowments  were  conferred 
by  God,  through  tlie  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands,  for  the  edifi- 
cation and  comfort  of  the  body  of  the  Church  ;  but  though  mirac- 
ulous, and  exercised  with  spiritual  jjower  and  grace,  the  persons 
who  had  these  gifts  were  often  individually  vainglorious  in  dis- 
playing them.     This  personal  element  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 


ROMANS  XII.    6-8.  359 

genuineness  of  these  gifts.  We  see  exactly  the  same  exhibition  of 
human  weakness,  and  vanity,  and  self-seeking,  yet  with  spiritual 
power,  in  the  holy  ministries  of  our  own  times. 

Verses  6-8.  But  having  miraculous  gifts,  differing  from 
one  another  according  to  the  grace  that  was  given  us,— 
whether  prophecy,  [use  it]  according  to  the  analogy  of  the 
faith;  or  ministering  [be]  in  the  ministering;  or  he  that 
teaches,  in  the  teaching ;  or  he  that  exhorts,  in  the  exhorta- 
tion ;  he  that  gives,  in  simplicity ;  he  that  rules,  in  earnest- 
ness'; he  that  shows  mercy,  in  cheerfulness. 

The  whole  passage  from  the  sixth  verse  to  the  nineteenth,  and 
practically  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  is  peculiarly  anacoluthic  ;  that 
is,  the  grammatical  construction  is  incoherent,  and  almost  jerky. 
One  might  think  that  the  apostle,  who  is  never  prodigal  of  speech, 
on  this  special  occasion,  in  dictating  this  long  paragraph,  uttered 
only  catch-words,  intending  a  fuller  composition  at  a  later  sittmg, 
and  never  returned  to  complete  it.     Yet  Tertius  (chap,  xvi,  23) 
caught  enough  of  the  ajiostle's  winged  words  to  preserve  the  heads 
of  the  thoughts,  if  not  their  full  expression."    A  passage  equally  an- 
acoluthic would  be  hard  to  find  in  all  literature.     In  the  whole  of 
the  twelve  verses,  the  only  finite  verbs  ("  bless,  curse,"  in  the  four- 
teenth verse,  and  "  become,"  in  the  sixteenth)  are  in  the  nnpera- 
tive  mode.     All  the  other  verbs  are  either  not  expressed  at  all,  or 
are  jotted  down  in  the  participial  or  infinitive  modes ;   and  the 
reader  is  left  to  make  out  the  sentences  at  his  best  judgment. 
The  translators,   or  exegetes.  are  not  always  agreed;    but  they 
mostly  adopt  the  imperative  mode,  following  the  model  in  the 
three  just  nan\ed.     But  it  is  best  to  leave  the  apostle's  utterances 
to  take  care  of  themselves,  both  as  an  illustration  of  his  qver- 
packed  style,  and  as  a  good  lesson  in  exegesis.     We  shall  not  be  at 
a  loss  to  get  some  appropriate  meaning,  even  without  workmg  his 
words  up  into  formal  sentences. 

There  are  seven  distinct  charisms  named  in  this  section, 
prophecy,  ministering,  teaching,  exhortation,  giving,  ruling, 
and  showing  mercy.  All  those  functions  were  inspired,  and  were 
exercised,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  service  of 
the  Church.  "Prophecy,"  as  shown  in  the  parallel  passage  m 
Corinthians  (1  Cor.  xiv),  was  the  most  useful,  if  not  the  most 
coveted,  endowment  in  the  early  Church.  It  was  the  gift  of  in- 
spired preaching;  it  did  not  ordinarily  mean  prediction,  but  only 


360  EXPOSITION. 

edification.  But  like  tlie  sliowy  gift  of  "  tongues,"  it  was  liable 
to  extravagance;  and  the  a|K)stlo  liere  directs  that  it  be  exercised 
only  in  accord  with  tlie  sober  analogies  of  the  faith.  The  next 
charisni  here  njinied  is  that  of  "  ministering"  to  the  wants  of  the 
Church.  The  word  5iaKov[a,  usually  translated  by  the  equivocal 
woi'd  "ministry,"  does  not  mean  (as  tliat  woi"d  so  often)  either 
the  clerical  body  or  the  clerical  function,  but  rather  any  helpful 
ministration  to  the  practical  needs  of  believers.  The  other  cliar- 
isms  severally  named,  may  come  under  the  general  head  of  "  min- 
istering," though  each  with  its  special  significance.  But  in  those 
early  days,  they  were  all  prompted  and  regulated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Verses  9-21.  Let  love  be  unfeigned;  abhorring  that 
which  is  evil ;  cleaving  to  that  which  is  good ;  in  brotherly- 
love  towards  one  another  affectionate ;  in  honor  preferring 
one  another;  in  earnestness  not  slow;  in  spirit  fervent; 
serving  the  Lord  ;  in  hope  rejoicing  ;  in  affliction  patient ; 
in  prayer  persevering;  contributing  to  the  necessities  of 
the  saints ;  pursuing  hospitality.  Bless  them  that  perse- 
cute you ;  bless,  and  curse  not.  To  rejoice  with  them  that 
rejoice ;  to  weep  with  them  that  weep.  Having  the  same 
mind,  towards  one  another ;  not  minding  the  high  things ; 
nay,  but  being  carried  away  with  the  lowly.  Do  not  be- 
come wise  in  your  ow^n  conceits.  To  no  one  evil  for  evil 
repaying ;  taking  forethought  for  things  honorable  in  the 
sight  of  all  men.  If  possible,  as  far  as  in  you  lies,  being  at 
peace  with  all  men;  not  yourselves  avenging,  beloved; 
nay,  but  give  place  to  the  wrath  1  of  God) ;  for  it  has  been 
written,  To  me  belongs  vengeance ;  I  will  repay,  says  the 
Lord.  Nay,  but  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed,  him ;  if  he 
thirst,  give  him  drink ;  for  this  doing,  coals  of  fire  thou  wilt 
heap  upon  his  head.  (Prov.  xxv,  21.)  Be  not  conquered  by 
evil ;  nay,  but  conquer  evil  with  good. 

Aside  from  the  anacoluthic  structure  of  the  sentences,  the 
thought  is  plain  ;  and  the  whole  paragraph  needs  but  few  woi-ds  of 
criticism  or  comment. 

In  the  tenth  verse,  the  clause  in  honor  prefer  one  another, 
probably  means  "to  promote  others"  to  honors  and  positions  in 
Churcli  and  State,  instead  of  selfishly  seeking  these  things  for  one's 
self.  Generosity  in  such  matters  is  as  worldly-wise,  as  it  is  noble. 
Men  will  repay  into  your  own  bosoms. 


ROMANS  XII.    9-21.  301 

In  the  thirteenth  verse,  the  verb,  contributing  to  the  wants 
of  others,  means  giving  from  one's  own  means;  or  making  others 
to  share  in  your  means,  in  common  with  yourself. 

In  the  seventeenth  verse,  the  English  verb  providing  things 
honest  (Authorized),  seems  to  mean  "  to  acquire  an  lionest  live- 
lihood;"  but  the  Greek  means  to  take  thought  (or  to  plan)  for  a 
life  reputable  in  the  judgment  of  the  world.  Not  only  that  your 
gains  be  honest ;  but  let  your  occupation  be  honorable. 

The  eighteenth  verse  implies  that  it  was  not  always  possible 
for  Christians  in  Paul's  days  to  live  peaceably.  The  initiative  was 
in  the  hands  of  their  enemies;  and  persecution  often  made  the 
persons  and  the  lives  of  Christians  unsafe. 

In  the  nineteenth  verse,  the  article,  the  wrath,  implies  the 
words  in  brackets  [of  God]  ;  and  this  renders  the  same  plain.  As 
declared  in  the  next  clause.  Vengeance  belongs  to  God:  we  must 
leave  our  vindication  to  him.  In  Ephesians,  we  have  the  opposite 
sense:  "Let  not  the  sun  go  down  on  your  wrath;  nor  yet  give 
place  to  the  devil."     (Eph.  iv,  27.) 


CHAPTER    XIII. 


Verses  1-7.  Let  every  soul  submit  to  the  prevailing 
authorities ;  for  there  is  no  authority,  except  by  God  ;  but 
the  authorities  that  are  have  been  ordained  by  God.  So 
that  he  that  opposes  the  authority,  resists  the  ordinance  of 
God ;  but  they  that  resist  will  receive  to  themselves  judg- 
ment. For  the  rulers  are  not  a  fear  to  the  good  vrork,  but 
to  the  bad.  But  wilt  thou  not  fear  the  authority  ?  Do  that 
which  is  good,  and  thou  wilt  have  praise  from  it.  For  it  is 
a  minister  of  God  to  thee  unto  that  which  is  good.  But  if 
thou  do  that  which  is  bad,  fear ;  for  not  in  vain  does  it  wear 
the  sword  ;  for  it  is  God's  minister,  an  avenger  unto  wrath, 
to  him  that  practices  that  which  is  bad.  Wherefore  there 
is  a  necessity  to  submit,  not  only  on  account  of  w^rath,  but 
also  on  account  of  conscience.  For  on  account  of  this  ye 
pay  tribute  also ;  for  they  are  agents  of  God,  to  this  very 
thing  devoting  themselves.  Render  to  all  their  dues ;  the 
tribute,  to  whom  ye  owe  the  tribute ;  the  custom,  to  whom 
the  custom ;  the  fear,  to  whom  the  fear ;  the  honor,  to 
whom  the  honor. 

The  early  Christians  belonged  largely  to  the  common  people  ; 
many  of  them  were  poor  and  oppressed,  and  not  a  few  of  them 
were  slaves.  From  these  civil  disabilities  they  saw  in  the  gospel 
a  promise  of  speedy  and  summary  deliverance.  Christ  himself 
had  announced,  in  the  words  of  Isaiah  (Ixi,  1)  that  he  came  to 
**  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor,  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives, 
to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bound."  (Luke  iv,  18.)  These 
gracious  and  consoling  words  intended  in  a  spiritual  sense,  were 
easily  misunderstood  by  the  oppressed,  who  would  gladly  see  their 
civil  abusers  overthrown,  even  if  by  violence.  Undoubtedly  social 
reforms  were  destined  to  come  about  under  the  steady  pressure  of 
the  gospel ;  but  neither  Christ  in  his  preaching,  nor  the  apostle  in 

862 


ROMANS  XIII.    1-7.  363 

his  letters,  contemplated  any  sudden  and,  least  of  all,  any  violent 
revolution.  We  do  not  know  of  any  general  agitation  in  the  Church 
at  Rome  for  civil  and  political  change;  but  we  know  that  in  tlie 
Churcli  at  Corinth  Paul  needed  to  repress  asocial  unrest,  and  com- 
manded, "Let  each  man  abide  in  the  condition  (even  of  slavery, 
or  social  inequality)  in  which  he  was  called."  (1  Cor.  vii,  20.)  At 
all  events,  his  words  of  admonition,  in  the  present  chapter,  show 
that  there  was  danger  of  such  commotions  in  the  Church  at  Rome. 
A  single  mistaken  step  in  this  direction  would  have  precipitated 
the  Church  at  Rome,  on  real  grounds,  into  the  awful  persecution 
in  which,  a  few  years  later,  on  vague  suspicion,  the  whole  Church 
nearly  perished. 

Paul  felt  that  the  Christians  at  Rome  should  not  show  hostility 
to  the  authorities,  both  for  policy's  sake,  and  for  conscience'  sake. 
Six  hundred  years  before  Paul's  time,  Jeremiah  wrote  to  the  exiles 
in  Babylon:  "Seek  the  peace  of  the  city  whither  ye  have  been 
carried  away  captive ;  and  pray  unto  Jehovah  for  it ;  for  in  the 
peace  thereof  will  ye  have  peace."  (Jer.  xxix,  7.)  In  like  manner, 
Paul  wrote  to  Timothy :  "  I  exhort,  first  of  all,  that  prayers  be  made 
for  kings,  and  all  that  are  in  authority  ;  that  we  may  lead  a  tranquil 
and  quiet  life  in  all  piety  and  decorum."  (1  Tim.  ii,  1.)  And  now 
he  bids  the  Romans  that  every  soul  shall  be  subject  to  the 
higher  authorities,  evidently  meaning  the  civil  rulers.  To  ap- 
preciate the  wisdom  and  magnanimity  of  tliis  command,  we  must 
recollect  that  the  ruler  at  Rome,  whom  Paul  had  foremost  in  his 
mind,  was  Nero,  the  world's  proverbial  monster  of  vice  and  cruelty, 
the  wild  beast  from  whose  mouth  the  apostle  himself  but  a  few 
years  later  wrote  that  he  had  been  marvelously  delivered,  yet  only 
to  be  destroyed  by  him  at  last.  This  tyrant  was  then  emperor  of 
Rome;  but  the  apostle  teaches  that  human  government,  even 
Nero's,  is  an  ordinance  of  God;  that  is,  that  the  de  facto  rulers, 
even  though  bad,  ideally  represent  the  authority  of  God.  Nero, 
the  murderer  of  brother,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  of  multitudes 
of  the  best  men  of  Rome,  the  incendiary  of  his  own  capital,  and 
the  persecutor  of  the  Christians,  was,  for  what  time  he  was  the 
actual  head  of  the  state,  the  authority  to  whom  was  due,  within 
endurable  limits,  the  obedience  of  all  subjects.  Even  Nero  was 
better  tlian  anarchy  ;  tyranny  is  an  abuse  of  government ;  anarchy 
is  the  abolition  of  government. 

Even  Paul,  two  years  after  this  letter,  "appealed  to  Csesar" 
(that  is,  to  Nero,  as  emperor)   from  the  cabals  of  the  Jews  •.   and 


364  EXPOSITION. 

found,  under  the  protection  of  the  empei'or,  safety  and  a  rigliteous 
deliverance. 

Nero's  government  was  bad  ;  none  could  be  worse,  except  that 
of  Turkey,  or  of  China;  but  it  was  government,  and  it  adequately 
conserved  the  ends  of  society,  the  rights  of  person  and  of  property. 
Strange  to  say,  Nero  was  a  popular  ruler.  Sometimes,  amid  civil 
commotions,  there  may  be  a  brief  doubt  which  of  two  antagonist 
parties  subjects  ought  to  obey.  The  doubt  is  usually  one  which  is 
soon  decided  either  peacefully  or  violently.  The  question  is  not, 
which  party  is  justhf  in  power,  but  which  is  actualli/  in  power.  The 
victorious  party  becomes  "  the  authorities  that  are,"  and  exactly 
answers  to  the  term  used  by  the  apostle, — "  the  prevailing  au- 
thorities," or,  more  literally,  "the  authorities  having  themselves 
above." 

But  there  is  also  another  side  to  the  duty  and  the  rights  of 
citizens, — the  final  right  of  self-vindication,  and  of  revolution. 
It  did  not  come  in  Paul's  line  of  thought  to  present  this  side  ;  but 
there  is  nothing  in  his  gospel  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  on 
this  subject  of  the  "American  Declaration  of  Independence:" 
"Governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just, 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Whenever  any  form  of 
government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of 
the  people  to  alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  govern- 
ment, laying  its  foundations  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its 
powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect 
their  safety  and  happiness."  (Declaration  of  Independence,  July 
4,  1776.) 

Verses  8-10.  To  no  one  owe  anything,  except  to  love 
one  another ;  for  he  that  loves  the  other  has  fulfilled  law. 
For  the  (saying],  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  Thou 
Shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  covet, 
and,  if  there  is  any  other  commandment,  it  is  summed 
up  in  this  [saying],  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.  Love  works  no  ill  to  his  neighbor  ;  love  there- 
fore is  fulfillment  of  law. 

The  command  in  the  seventh  verse,  "  Render  to  all  men  their 
dues,"  is  apparently  comprehensive  of  all  obligations  of  all  kinds ; 
but  the  added  specifications  in  the  next  clauses  of  the  verse  show 
that  the  apostle  has  in  his  mind  thus  far  only  the  outward  obliga- 
tions of  the  citizens  to  the  civil  authorities.     At  the  most  it  is  the 


MOMANS  XIII.    11-14.  365 

secular  life  that  has  been  touched.  But  in  the  "eighth  verse  the 
command,  while  not  more  general  in  form,  goes  very  much  fur- 
ther. The  thouglit  of  the  verse  touches  not  upon  the  outward 
conduct  of  men  only,  but  upon  their  inward  motives.  We  now  go 
down  to  the  seat  of  the  moral  affections ;  and  we  are  required  not 
only  to  pay  men  their  dues,  but  to  love  our  neighbor,  which  is  the 
summing  up  of  all  our  obligations.  The  "two  commandments," 
on- which,  Christ  says,  "hangs  the  whole  law,  and  the  prophets" 
(Matt,  xxii,  40),  are  found,  it  is  true,  in  the  Old  Testament  (Deut. 
vi,  5;  Lev.  xix,  18),  the  dispensation  of  legal  obedience  more  than 
of  spiritual  religion ;  but  Christ  quotes  these  sayings  in  a  higher 
strain,  and  enforces  their  obligation  on  the  consciences  as  well  as 
on  the  conduct  of  men.  The  prescriptions  of  the  Law  (as  in  the 
Decalogue)  aim  to  regulate  our  outward  lives  ;  the  prescriptions  of 
the  gospel  seek  the  control  of  our  inward  lives,  our  affections,  and 
hearts,  and  soul,  and  mind. 

Paul  here  makes  the  negative  statement  that  Love  works 
no  ill  to  his  neighbor,— which  is  as  far  as  the  commandments  in 
the  Decalogue  reach :  "Thou  shalt  not—;"  and  it  is  in  this  legal 
phase  of  the  matter  that  he  adds  that  Love  is  therefore  fulfill- 
ment of  law.  But  the  apostle's  saying  is  really  stronger  than 
this.  The  word  "  law"  in  our  text  is  anarthrous,  and,  as  we  have 
so  often  seen,  signifies  not  the  special  law  of  Jewish  legislation, 
or,  at  least,  not  that  only,  but  "  law"  in  its  widest  range,  the  law 
of  the  universe,  the  great  ethical  law  which  holds  in  its  sway  God, 
and  angels,  and  men.  And  it  is  in  this  comprehensive  sense  of 
"  law^  "  that  we  must  translate  and  interpret  the  saying  that  "  love 
is  fulfillment  of  law  "  for  all  beings,  always,  and  everywhere. 

In  the  ninth  verse  the  apostle  quotes  the  Seventh  Command- 
ment, "  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  before  the  Sixth, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  kill."  The  same  peculiarity,  whether  from  in- 
advertence or  from  some  rabbinic  tradition  is  found  also  in  Mark 
(x,  19)  and  in  James  (ii,  11). 

Verses  11-14.  And  this,  knowing  the  season,  that  it  is 
time  for  you  already  to  be  awaked  from  sleep ;  for  now 
salvation  is  nearer  us  than  when  we  [first]  had  faith.  The 
night  went  on,  but  the  day  has  come  near.  Let  us  put  off 
therefore  the  works  of  the  darkness,  but  let  us  put  on  the 
weapons  of  the  light.  Let  us  walk  becomingly,  as  in  day, 
not  with  revels  and  drunkenness,  not  with  lewdness  and 


360  EXPOSITION. 

lasciviousness,  not  with  strife  and  jealousy :  nay,  but  put 
ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  do  not  make  provision 
for  the  flesh,  to  satisfy  its  lusts. 

This  paragraph  continues  the  thought  of  the  last  paragraph, 
that  love  avoids  offense  against  his  neighbor,  and  so  fulfills  law. 
But  the  offense  now  takes  shai)e  in  the  ajjostle's  thought,  es|)e- 
cially  in  regard  to  social  (or  sexual)  impurity.  It  is  a  remarkable 
testimony  to  the  low  state  of  morals  in  the  Gentile  world  that  the 
apostle  needed  to  write  this  cliapter  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  or 
the  sixth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  or  that 
the  Council  at  Jerusalem  needed  to  write  to  the  Gentile  Christians, 
"Abstain  from  fornication."     (Acts  xv,  29.) 

The  first  woi-ds,  And  this,  are  equivalent  to  the  more  common 
phrase,  "  and  that,  too,"  and  must  be  explained  in  the  same  way  ; 
that  is,  they  restate  the  thought  of  the  preceding  sentence.  It  is 
as  if  the  apostle  hei-e  said,  "  Owe  no  man  aught  but  love,  and  do 
not  sin  against  your  neighbor ;  and  that,  too,  because  you  are 
aware  of  the  upward  movement  of  the  Church  ;  that  the  hour  has 
come  when  you  should  wake  from  your  long  sleep  of  sin  ;  for  now 
you  are  nearer  being  saved  from  your  sins  than  when  you  first 
made  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  While  you  slept,  the  night 
went  on ;  the  day  dawn  is  at  hand.  Put  away  the  deeds  of  the 
night:  put  on  the  armor  of  the  day:  put  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  take  no  thought  to  gratify  your  lusts." 


CHAPTEK  XIY. 


Verses  1-4.  But  him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive 
ye ;  not  with  a  view  to  criticisms  of  his  scruples.  There  is 
one  man,  who,  indeed,  has  faith  to  eat  all  things  ;  but  he 
that  is  weak  eats  only  vegetables.  Let  not  him  that  eats 
count  for  naught  him  that  eats  not ;  and  let  not  him  that 
eats  not  judge  him  that  eats  ;  for  God  received  him.  Who 
art  thou  that  judgest  another's  servant?  To  his  own  lord 
he  stands,  or  falls.  But  he  will  be  made  to  stand.  For  the 
Lord  is  able  to  make  him  stand. 

This  chapter  treats  of  the  forbearance  due  to  the  scruples  of 
others,  especially  on  points  which  the  apostle  says  (verse  14)  are 
of  no  moment  in  themselves.  The  term  which  he  uses  to  describe 
the  Jews  was  appropriate,  not  because  they  were  weak,  numeric- 
ally, though  this  was  true,  but  because  they  were  feeble  in  their 
faith ;  and  therefore  the  more  required  to  be  borne  with.  The  last 
word,  weak  in  the  faith,  means  in  the  gospel,  yet  here  not  as  a 
system  of  doctrines,  but  only  so  far  forth  as  it  is  deliverance  from 
the  Levitical  ordinances.  The  early  Jewish  converts  still  had  scru- 
ples on  the  subject  of  circumcision,  of  foods  clean  and  unclean,  of 
things  offered  to  idols,  and  of  the  feast  days  of  the  Jewish  year. 
The  Gentiles,  on  the  other  hand,  besides  being  the  majority  of  the 
Church,  were  not  in  bondage  to  any  of  these  things;  and  so  Paul 
calls  them  "  the  strong."  (Rom.  xv,  1.)  And  it  is  to  the  "  strong," 
Gentile  element  of  the  Church  that  the  apostle  now  addresses  his 
appeal  for  tolerance  of  the  views  of  the  others— Receive  the  weak 
Jews  into  fellowship  ;  receive  them  to  your  love  and  confidence, 
not  to  decisions  uf  their  doubts  ;  or  perhaps  we  might  translate,  to 
wrangles  over  their  scruples.  Paul's  word  here  for  "  weak  "  is 
not  the  adjective,  as  if  a  characteristic,  or  permanent,  defect  in 
the  Jew,  but  a  participle  implying  only  his  temporary  condition. 
And  the  thought  of  the  apostle  was  not  that  these  scruples  are 

367 


368  EXPOSITION. 

indifTerent;  but  that  tliey  are  not  the  most  important  matters  of 
the  religious  life  ;  and  that  weaknesses,  which  are  not  sins,  may 
be  tolerated  in  tiie  Church,  until  the  leaven  of  the  gospel  shall 
bring  both  Jew  and  (lentile,  both  weak  and  strong,  into  one. 

The  first  matter  of  difference  between  the  weak  and  the 
strong  refers  to  the  Jewish  discrimination  between  "clean"  foods 
and  "  unclean."  The  Mosaic  legislation  prescribed  certain  animals 
that  might  be  eaten  ;  but  proscribed  certain  others  that  migiit  not 
be  eaten  at  all.  This  distinction  which  the  Jews  scrupulously 
observed,  is  the  basis  for  Peter's  vision  of  the  sheet  let  down  from 
heaven.  But  no  Jew  ate  even  "clean"  animals,  unless  ritually 
butchered  ("  kosher  meat"),  so  that  no  blood  was  left  in  the  flesh. 
"Ye  shall  eat  no  manner  of  blood:  whosoever  eats  any  blood, 
that  person  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  (excommunicated  as 
unclean  from  the  congregation)."  (Lev.  vii,  26.)  And  to  this 
end,  the  Jews  abstained  from  all  flesh  sold  in  the  common  market. 
But  there  was  a  point  under  the  latter  head  that  was  just  as  serious 
for  some  Christian  Gentiles,  at  first,  as  for  the  scrupulous  Jew. 
Most,  if  not  all,  of  the  flesh  sold  in  the  public  markets  had  first 
been  offered  as  sacrifices  (the  blood  jioured  out  on  the  altars  of 
idols) ;  and  was  thereby  "  unclean  "  to  the  Christian  ;  and  most  of 
the  wine  sold  had  first  been  offered  (by  symbolic  libation)  to  the 
idol,  and  was  thereby  unclean;  and  to  eat  these  meats  offered  to 
idols  was,  religiously,  "  to  have  communion  with  the  idol."  (1  Cor. 
X,  20.)  This  was  the  scruple  which  withheld  Daniel  from  eating  of 
the  king's  food,  and  drinking  the  king's  wine,  lest  he  should  defile 
himself  with  meats  offered  to  idols.  Pliny,  in  his  famous  letter  to 
Trajan  (A.D.104)  says  that  even  before  that  date  the  Christians 
had  so  multiplied  in  Bithynia,  tiiat  there  could  scarcely  be  found 
l)urchasers  for  the  flesh  of  idol  sacrifices,  offered  for  sale  in  the 
markets.  (Pliny  x,  96.)  This  was  the  condition  of  things  at 
Corinth  ;  and  Paul  devotes  two  chapters,  in  the  main,  of  tlie  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  to  a  discussion  "  concerning  things 
sacrificed  to  idols"  and  afterwards  sold  in  the  markets  (chapters 
viii,  x).  Paul  tells  the  Corinthians  that  as  for  himself  he  did  not 
recognize  the  idol  as  being  anything  real  in  the  world,  and  that, 
therefore,  he  had  no  scruples  about  eating  such  food ;  and  he 
bids  them:  "Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  eat,  askmg 
no  question  about  it,  on  account  of  8cruj)les  of  conscience." 
(1  Cor.  x,  25.)  Yet  he  says  that  out  of  regaitl  to  others  he  would 
not  sin  against  the  (weak)  brethren,  and  wound  their  consciences: 


ROMANS  XIV.    5-9.  369 

"  If  my  food  scandalizes  my  brother,  I  will  not  eat  flesh  for  ever- 
more." (1  Cor.  viii,  18.)  Such,  too,  was  the  condition  of  things  at 
Rome  also.  Some  of  the  Romans  had  faith  (that  is,  felt  free) 
to  eat  all  things,— evidently  meats  bouglit  in  the  market,  which 
doubtless  had  been  offered  to  idols.  But  others  of  the  Church, 
the  weaklings,  ate  only  vegetables,  like  Daniel  and  the  other 
scrupulous  Jews  at  Babylon.  And  here  again,  as  also  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, the  apostle  commands  that  the  two  parties  should  not 
incriminate  eacli  other  for  eating,  or  for  not  eating ;  but,  without 
wrangling,  should  frankly  leave  every  believer  to  his  own  con- 
science, and  to  God.  The  strong  must  not  make  naught  of  the 
weak,  as  crotchety,  as  sticklers  for  trifles ;  and  the  weak  must  not 
judge  and  condemn  the  strong  as  lawless,  heady  followers  of  their 
own  caprices. 

The  last  clause  in  the  third  verse.  For  God  received  him, 
might  equally  well  apply  to  either  of  the  two,  the  strong,  or  the 
weak;  but  the  connection,  and  the  verb  judgest  in  the  fourth 
verse,  which  characterizes  the  "weaA;"  man,  make  the  pronoun 
him  point  rather  to  the  strong  man,  the  Gentile,  who  is  free  from 
scruples.  Tlie  caution  to  the  weak  man  is  that  he  should  not 
judge  and  condemn  the  strong  man  on  the  ground  of  laxity ;  "  for 
God  received  him ;"  and  the  weak  brother  has  no  right  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  one  whom  God  approves  and  receives.  He  stands  or 
falls  to  his  own  Lord,  not  to  the  fallible  man  who  assumes  to  judge 
him.  And  then  the  apostle  adds.  But  he  will  be  made  to  stand ; 
for,  notwithstanding  what  to  the  weak  brother  may  seem  license 
and  instability,  the  Lord  of  both  parties  has  power  to  make  him 
stand.  Notice  that  both  here  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, Paul  evidently  sympathizes  with  the  strong  man,  who,  like 
the  apostle  himself,  is  Christ's  free  man :  but  his  words  are  non- 
partisan, dispassionate,  and  gentle  even  to  the  uncharitable  con- 
demner  of  the  brethren. 

Verses  5-9.  For  there  is  one  man,  ■who,  indeed,  es- 
teems day  above  day ;  but  there  is  one  w^ho  esteems 
every  day.  Let  each  naan  be  fully  assured  in  his  own 
mind.  He  that  minds  the  day  minds  it  to  the  Lord ;  and 
he  that  eats,  eats  to  the  Lord,  for  he  thanks  G-od  ;  and  he 
that  eats  not,  to  the  Lord  eats  not ;  and  thanks  God.  For 
no  one  of  us  lives  to  himself,  and  no  one  dies  to  himself. 
For  if  we  live,  we  live  to  the  Lord ;  and  if  we  die,  we  die 
24 


370  EXPOSITION. 

to  the  Lord :  if  we  live,  therefore,  or  if  we  die,  w^e  are  the 
Lord's.  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived,  that  he 
may  be  Lord  both  of  dead  men  and  of  living. 

The  discussion  here  still  continues  in  regard  to  foods  clean 
and  unclean.  And  tlie  first  two  verses  about  the  distinction  in 
day  come  in  only  as  a  parallel  instance  of  the  principle  which  holds 
in  the  matter  of  foods.  The  meaning  is,  that  just  as  differences 
of  opinion  are  now  innocently  held  in  regard  to  the  days  once  es- 
teemed holy  and  obligatory  (a  freedom  of  opinion  in  those  matters 
which  all  parties  concede),  so  differences  of  opinion  may  now 
innocently  be  held  in  regard  to  the  eating  of  flesh.  The  days  re- 
ferred to  are  the  now  obsolete  feast  days  of  the  Jews,  the  Passover, 
the  Pentecost,  the  Feast  of  the  Tabernacles.  New  Moons,  and  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  These  are  the  days  that  Paul  elsewhere  enumer- 
ates. Thus  he  says  to  the  Galatians, "  Ye  (Gentiles)  are  observing 
[the  Jewish]  days,  and  months,  and  seasons,  and  years"  (Gal. 
iv,  10)  ;  and  to  the  Colossians,  "Let  no  man  condemn  you  in  your 
eating,  or  in  drinking,  or  in  regard  of  a  feast  day,  or  of  a  new 
moon,  or  of  a  Sabbath-day, — which  things  are  a  shadow  of  the 
things  that  were  to  come,  whose  substance  is  Christ"  (Col.  ii,  16). 
The  man  who  has  scruples  about  "  the  days"  is  evidently  the  man 
of  weak  faith,  who  also  lias  scruples  about  eating.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  "the  strong"  man  that  eats  all  things,  w^ho  also  es- 
teems all  days.  |The  meaning  of  this  last  phrase  is,  that  he 
counts  all  days  equally  consecrated  to  God  not  desecrated  as  over 
against  the  Jewish  Sabbath.] 

The  observance  of  certain  days  as  hallowed  is  a  matter  indif- 
ferent in  itself,  with  a  strong  presumption  against  the  observance 
as  indicating  overscrupulousness.  But  Paul  bids,  Let  every  man 
be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  It  thus  resolves  itself 
into  a  question  of  the  judgment  as  well  as  of  the  conscience!  It 
is  equally  so  in  regard  to  the  eating  of  nil  foods  indiscriminately. 
And  so  Paul  says.  He  that  minds  the  day  (the  weak  man), 
minds  it  to  the  Lord, — that  is,  deferring  to  what  he  thinks  God's 
will  in  the  matter;  for  he  thanks  God  ;  but  in  the  same  way,  he 
that  eats,  eats  to  the  Lord ;  for  he  thanks  God. 

The  next  verses,  seventh  to  the  ninth,  declare  what  we  must 
hold  true  of  all  believers,  of  the  strong  as  well  as  the  weak.  Both 
live  with  good  conscience  before  Gf)d :  no  one  of  us  lives  to 
himself,  or  dies  to  himself:  but  to  the  Lord— that  is,  we  must 


ROMANS  XIV.    10-13.  371 

count  ourselves  as  belonging  to  him.  And  his  servants  we  are,  in 
life  and  in  death.  To  this  end  Christ  was  manifested,  that 
he  (and  not  ive,  the  censor  of  the  brethren,  or  the  despiser)  may 
be  the  Lord  of  us  all,  both  of  dead  men  and  of  living. 

Verses  10-13.  But  thou!  why  dost  thou  judge  thy 
brother?  or  also  thou!  why  dost  thou  count  thy  brother 
for  naught  ?  For  we  all  shall  stand  before  the  bar  of  God. 
For  it  has  been  written. 

As  I  live,  says  the  Lord,  [I  swear]  that  to  me  every 
knee  shall  bow. 

And  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God.  (Isa.  xlv,23.) 
Accordingly  then,  each  one  of  us  concerning  himself  will 
give  account  to  God.  No  longer,  therefore,  let  us  judge 
one  another ;  nay,  but  judge  ye  this  rather,  not  to  put 
a  stumbling-block  for  your  brother,  or  an  occasion  of 
offense. 

In  the  ninth  verse  the  apostle  has  said  that  Christ  died  and 
lived  that  he,  and  not  lue,  finite  and  fallible,  may  be  Lord  of  all 
men,  both  dead  and  living.  Yet  the  Jew  has  dared  to  judge  the 
Gentile  for  his  offense  in  "  eating  all  things  ;"  and  the  Gentile  has 
dared  to  ridicule  the  Jew  for  his  narrow  scruples  about  the  same 
harmless  foods.  It  is  in  view  of  this  unfraternal  bearing  that 
the  apostle  now  sharply  reprehends  them  both,  and  asks  first  of 
the  Jew,  Thou!  why  dost  thou  judge  (and  condemn)  thy 
brother?  and  of  the  Gentile,  Thou  1  why  dost  thou  count  thy 
brother  as  a  man  of  naught?  Neither  thou,  nor  thou,  art 
judge ;  it  is  at  God's  bar,  not  yours,  that  we  all  shall  stand. 
God  himself  said,  To  me  (not  to  men)  shall  every  knee  bow. 
(The  sentence  here  is  the  regular  formula  of  an  oath ;  the  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  implies  the  words,  "  1  swear  it.")  Accord- 
ingly then,  the  apostle  continues,  each  one  of  us  will  give  ac- 
count concerning  himself  to  God,  not  to  his  brother ;  and  he 
concludes  with  the  exhortation,  Let  us  no  longer  judge.  This 
thirteenth  verse  gives  a  good  illustration  how,  in  the  same  sense, 
a  leading  word  may,  for  the  sake  of  parallelism,  be  used  in  unlike 
(almost  opposite)  meanings:  "Let  us  not  judge  and  condemn  one 
another;  nay,  but  let  us  rather  judge  and  approve  of  a  charitable 
course  towards  our  failing,  falling  brother,— namely,  not  to  put 
stumbling  stones  in  his  path." 


372  EXPOSITION. 

Verses  14-18.  I  know  and  am  persuaded  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  that  nothing  is  unclean  through  itself;  except  that 
to  him  that  reckons  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  that  one  it 
is  unclean.  For  if  on  account  of  thy  food,  thy  brother  is 
grieved,  no  longer  thou  walkest  according  to  love.  Do  not 
with  thy  food  destroy  that  man  for  whom  Christ  died.  Let 
not  therefore  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of.  For  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  not  eating  and  drinking ;  nay,  but  justifica- 
tion, and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  he  that  in 
this  matter  serves  Christ,  is  well-pleasing  to  God,  and  ap- 
proved by  men. 

The  words  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  are  sometimes  thought  to  de- 
scribe the  apostle's  assurance,  as  being  in  Christ,  but  this  is  not 
very  clear.  It  is  better  to  hold  that  there  is  substantially  here  a 
trajection  of  the  conjunction  that,  and  that  the  sentence  should 
read,  "  I  am  persuaded  that  in  the  Lord  Jesus."  At  all  events, 
the  apostle  describes  how  tlie  dispensation  of  tlie  gospel  has  gone 
beyond  the  old  disj^onsation  of  Jewish  observances.  Once,  certain 
things  were  made  ritually  clean,  and  unclean,  to  serve  as  outward 
symbols  of  moral  distinctions.  This  kindergarten  period  of  Church 
training  has  gone  by.  Now,  "  in  the  Lord  Jesus,"  that  is  in  the 
mature  kingdom  of  God  (which  the  apostle  expressly  names  in 
the  seventeenth  verse)  there  is  no  need  or  place  for  these  ele- 
mentary things.  "In  the  Lord  Jesus,"  that  is,  in  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  "  there  is  nothing  ritually  clean,  nothing  ritually  unclean." 
The  gospel  does  not  concern  itself  about  foods  and  drinks,  and 
ritualistic  mummeries  in  general. 

This  is  Paul's  own  conviction  for  himself.  But  he  holds  tliat 
for  others  the  whole  matter  of  things  clean  and  unclean  turns  on 
their  personal  attitude.  If  the  weak  Jew,  still  wearing  the  fetters 
of  Moses,  reckons  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  \xn- 
clean.  His  scruples  (tiiough  his  scruples  are  now  only  a  super- 
stition) establish  for  him  certain  limits  on  the  matter  of  foods, 
which  he  can  not  transgress  without  guilt.  And  so  the  apostle 
teaches  that  the  strong  man  (the  Gentile,  who  has  none  of  these 
scruples)  must  not,  tiirough  his  own  latitude  in  the  matter  of  food, 
give  his  weaker  brother  i)ain,  or  by  his  example  influence  him  to 
violate  his  conscience.  Do  not  with  thy  food  [.Mford  admirably 
puts  it,  "by  a  meal  of  thine")  destroy  him  for  whom  Christ 
died.     Do  not,  by  needless  indulgence  in  that  which  is  all  right 


ROMANS  XIV.    19-23.  373 

for  you,  but  may  not  be  so  to  others,  bring  evil  reports  upon  your- 
self. And  it  is  not  a  great  personal  sacriiice  to  make.  "  For  the 
kingdom  of  God  (whose  privileges  you  share  with  your  weaker 
brethren)  does  not  consist  in  the  sensuous  enjoyments  of  eating 
and  drinking,  to  please  yourself,  but  in  the  liigher  enjoyment  of 
justification,  and  peace,  and  joy,  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Verses  19-23.  Accordingly,  then,  let  us  follow  the 
things  of  peace,  and  the  things  of  the  edification  of  one  an- 
other. Do  not  for  the  sake  of  food  destroy  [tear  down]  the 
work  of  God.  All  foods  indeed  are  clean ;  but  [to  eat  them  ] 
is  bad  to  the  man  that  eats  with  offense.  It  is  good  not  to 
eat  flesh,  nor  yet  to  drink  wine,  nor  yet  to  do  aught  in  which 
thy  brother  stumbles.  The  faith  which  thou  thyself  hast, 
have  it  to  thyself  before  God.  Happy  is  he  that  judges 
[  and  condemns  ]  not  himself  in  that  which  he  approves.  But 
if  he  that  doubts  [about  his  food]  eat,  he  has  been  con- 
demned; because  he  eats  not  from  faith.  But  eversrthing 
w^hich  is  not  from  faith  is  sin. 

The  paragraph  opens  with  a  practical  exhortation  arising  from 
the  religious  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  and  the  obligations  which 
it  imposes  on  its  members.  Christians  should  look,  not  on  their 
own  things,  but  on  the  things  of  others.  They  are  members  of  one 
another,  and  must  "seek  one  another's  peace  and  edification." 
Notice  that,  by  this  word  edification,  Paul  does  not  mean  mere 
instruction  or  enlightenment  of  the  understanding,  as  if  the 
"strong"  man  should  seek  to  teach  the  weaker  brother  on  the 
points  of  debate.  This  contention  is  forbidden  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  chapter.  But  the  sense  of  the  word  here  (and  always  in 
Scriptures)  is  that  of  upbuilding  and  establishing  in  personal  faith. 
This  work  is  not  so  much  intellectual  as  religious;  and  applies 
to  the  upbuilding  of  the  spiritual  house  of  God  in  the  hearts  of 
believers. 

After  this  general  exhortation,  the  apostle  in  the  twentieth 
verse,  resumes  the  special  discussion  of  the  eating  of  unclean 
foods.  And  the  first  words  repeat  substantially  the  command  in 
the  fifteenth  verse,  but  with  specific  differences  in  expression  and 
w^ords.  In  the  fifteenth  verse,  the  command  is,  "  Do  not  by  thy 
food  (that  is,  by  eating  '  unclean'  food)  destroy  the  man  for  whom 
Christ  died."  This  verb  "destroy"  means  "cause  to  perish," 
that  is,  make  thy  brother  fall  away  from   his  integrity.     In  the 


374  EXpnsirroN. 

Iwcnlieth  verse,  tlie  commniid  is,  Do  not  for  the  sake  of  food 
(that  is,  that  you  may  enjoy  tiic  daiiitii's  of  tiie  luarki-t)  destroy 
the  work  of  God.  The  verb  "destroy"  liere  means,  "tear 
down  ;"  and  tlie  word  "work"  means  "  the  buildhu/ of  God."  "Do 
not,  for  the  sake  of  a  little  self-indulgence,  tear  down  what  God 
is  building  up."  Both  verbs,  "  destroy,"  "  tear  down,"  are  in  the 
present  tense,  and  may  rather  express  the  tendency,  than  the 
•  actual  result.  But  neither  verb  implies  that  the  result  will  be 
tlie  perdition  of  the  weak  brother,  but  only  his  stumbling  in  his 
Christian  life. 

The  principle  exemplified  in  the  last  part  of  the  twentieth 
verse  is  far-reaching;  and  is  put  in  yet  more  general  tei-ms,  in  the 
last  verse  of  the  chapter.  No  man  can  rightly  do  what  he  does  not 
know  to  be  innocent.  All  foods  are  really  clean  ;  but  to  eat  them 
is  a  sin  to  the  man,  the  "weak"  brother,  who  can  not  eat  them 
without  wounding  his  own  conscience.  And  to  eat  them  is  equally 
a  sin  to  the  "strong"  man,  who  if  he  eat  them,  scandalizes  his 
brother  and  causes  him  to  stumble.  And  so  the  apostle  gives  a 
double  admonition.  To  the  "  strong"  man  he  says,  "  If  you  have 
faith  (are  conscience-free)  to  eat  all  things,  do  not  vaunt  your 
liberty,  or  parade  your  eating,  to  the  offense  of  your  weaker 
brother.  Have  it  to  yourself."  And  to  the  "  weak"  man  he  says, 
"  Do  not  eat  against  your  convictions.  Happy  is  he  that  does  not 
bring  condemnation  on  his  conscience,  in  eating  that  in  which  he 
is  overbold  to  indulge  himself." 

And  then  he  adds  a  concluding  and  conclusive  summing  up; 
that  he  that  discriminates  in  his  own  conscience,  between  foods 
on  the  ground  of  their  being  clean  or  unclean,  if  he  nevertheless 
eat  them  indiscriminately,  has  by  his  own  act,  brought  condemna- 
tion on  his  own  conscience,  because  he  eats  without  inward  assur- 
ance that  the  eating  is  innocent.  But  whatever  in  this  direction 
is  not  done  from  this  quiet  inward  assurance  of  soul  is  sin. 


CHAPTEK   XV. 


Verses  1-6.    But  we,  the  strong,  ought  to  bear  with  the 

weaknesses  of  the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.    Let 
each  one  of  us   please   his  neighbor  unto  that  which  is 
good,  for  his  upbuilding.    And  [do  this],  for  Christ  did  not 
please  himself;   nay,  but  [denied  himself],  according  as  it 
has  been  written.  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproach 
thee  fall  on  me.     (Psa.  Ixix,  9.)     For  as  many  things  as 
were  written  of  old,  were  written  for  our  instruction,  that 
through  the  patience  and  through  the  encouragement  of 
the  Scriptures,  we  may  have  the  hope.    But  may  the  God 
of  the  patience  and  of  the  encouragement  give  you  to  be 
of  the  same  mind  with  one  another,  according   to  Christ 
Jesus;    that  with  one   accord,  with   one  mouth,  ye   may 
glorify  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

This  paragraph  is  an  additional  appeal  to  the  strong  men  in 
the  Church  in  behalf  of  the  weaker  brethren  (literally,  the  not 
strong),  on  the  ground  of  conscience  and  of  Christian  forbear-, 
ance  •  We  ought  to  bear  with  them.  The  verb  should  be  trans- 
lated "  to  bear  with,"  not  "  to  bear  "  (that  is,  "  to  carry  "),  wliich 
is  inappropriate  with  the  word  weaknesses.  But  we  are  directed 
"  to  carry  the  burdens,"  not  the  infirmities,  of  others.  (Gal.  vi,  2.) 
But  the  man  of  sympathy  and  patience  "bears  with"  the  weak- 
ness of  his  weaker  brethren.  He  will  not  let  their  failings,  even 
though  they  verge  upon  being  faults,  anger  or  vex  him.  The  ex- 
ample of  Christ  is  cited,  who  did  not  please  himself,  but  "  bore 
with  the  contradiction  of  sinners,"  and,  like  David  in  the  Psalms, 
"  endured  the  reproaches  "  of  the  ingrates,  who  reproach  even 
God  And  Paul  adds  that  these  lessons  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  written  for  our  instruction.  If  we  take  to  heart  these 
lessons  of  patience  and  encouragement  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
this  lesson  of  Christ's  patience  and  endurance  under  provocation, 
we  shall  have  oneness  of  mind  with  one  another. 

375 


376  EXPOSITION. 

Verses  7-13.  'Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  ac- 
cording as  also  Christ  received  you,  to  the  glory  of  God. 
For  I  say  that  Christ  has  become  minister  of  circumcision, 
in  behalf  of  God's  truthfulness,  that  he  may  confirm  the 
promises  of  the  fathers  ;  but  that  the  Gentiles  may  glorify 
God,  for  his  mercy  [to  them] ;  according  as  it  has  been 
written. 

On  this  account  I  will  confess  to  thee  among  Gentiles. 

And  to  thy  name  I  w^ill  sing.     (I'sii.  xviii,  49.) 
And  again  [the  Scripture]  says. 

Rejoice,  Gentiles,  with  his  people.     (Deut.  xxxii,43.) 
And  again. 

Praise  all  the  Gentiles  Jehovah  ; 

And  let  all  the  peoples  praise  him.     (Psa.  cxvii,  1.) 
And  again  Isaiah  says, 

There  will  be  the  root  of  Jesse, 

And  he  that  arises  to  rule  Gentiles  ; 

On  him  Gentiles  will  hope.     (Isii.  xi,  10.) 
But  may  the   God   of  the  hope  fill   you  with   all  joy  and 
peace  in  having  faith,  that  ye  may  abound  in  the  hope  [of 
eternal  life]  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  conjunction  w^herefore  refers  back  to  the  discussion  on 
the  forbearance  of  the  strong  towards  llie  weak.  In  the  first  verse 
of  chapter  xiv,  Paul  bids  the  strong  Gentile,  "  Receive  him  that  is 
weak,  the  overscrupulous  Jew,  not  into  debate  and  wrangle  over 
his  scruples,  but  into  kind  and  fraternal  relations."  It  is  the 
Gentile  who  is  there  required  to  make  allowance  for  the  Jew. 
But  in  our  present  verse  the  apostle's  concept  is,  that  both  parties 
must  yield  somewhat,  each  to  tlie  other ;  and  so  now  he  bids  both 
the  Gentile  and  the  Jew,  Receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ 
also  received  you,  to  the  glory  of  God.  Nominally  lie  ad- 
dresses both  parties;  yet  his  underlying  thought  is  still  chiefly  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  i)erhaps  the  clause,  "Christ  also  received  ?/o(t," 
applies  wholly  to  the  Gentiles.  It  is  the  implication  of  the  verse 
that  the  Jews  were  already  in  the  Church,  but  that  now  Christ 
received  the  Gentiles  also,  to  the  glory  of  God. 

The  conjunction  for  in  the  eighth  verse  has  its  usual  explica- 
tive function,  and  it  refers  to  the  phrase,  "Christ  received  you." 
The  argument  is  that  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles  should  receive 
one  anotiier  as  equals  in  the  Church,  for  the  reason  that  Christ 


ROMANS  XV.   U-n.   ^  377 

has  become  minister  of  circumcision — first,  that  lie  may  confirm 
to  the  Jews  the  promises  made  to  tlieir  I'atliors,  and,  secondly, 
that  the  Gentiles  may  come  to  glorify  God  for  his  mercy  to  them 
in  Christ.  Both  words,  minister  and  circuracision,  here  used 
are  anarthrous;  not  ^^  the  minister  of  the  Circumcision,"  as  in  the 
Authorized  and  the  Revised.  The  word  "circumcision"  does  not 
mean  "  the  Circumcised,"  that  is,  the  Jewish  Church  (as  fre- 
quently; for  example,  Rom.  iii,  30;  Gal.  ii,  7-9)  ;  but  the  rite  of 
circumcision,  and  it  is  quite  equivalent  to  the  covenant  of  th< 
Jews.  This  rite  was  the  requirement  on  w^hich  the  promises  to  the 
fathers  were  conditioned ;  and  it  was  of  this  covenant  that  Christ 
became  "minister."  This  word  "minister"  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  mean,  as  the  common  English  term  "  minister,"  an 
ecclesiastic,  or  preacher,  for  Christ  did  not  preach  circumcision, 
but,  as  the  Greek  word  always  signifies,  "a  servitor;"  but  better 
hero,  a  subserver,  or  functionary,  whose  oflRce  was  to  interpret  and 
fulfill,  to  the  Jews,  this  rite  of  their  religion,  in  its  real,  underly- 
ing significance.,  Christ  thus  subserved  the  truth  of  God  so  as  to 
confirm  to  the  Jews  the  spiritual  promises  made  to  their  fathers. 
But  this  confirmation  of  the  promises  extended  also  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. They,  too,  are  the  recipients  of  the  universal  promises. 
"Christ  received^'  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  on  a  common  basis. 
And  so  the  second  result  of  his  "  ministry"  is,  that  the  Gentiles 
may  glorify  God  for  his  mercy  to  them. 

And  on  this  mentioning  of  the  Gentiles,  Paul  bursts  out 
afresh  with  a  few  more  citations  (just  as  they  occur  to  him)  of 
Scriptural  passages  in  which  the  Gentiles  are  named  as  having  a 
place  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  How  abundantly  and  proudly  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  magnifies  his  office  ;  and  how  copiously  the 
Jewish  Sci'iptures  yield  him  their  riches!  The  number  of  these 
explicit  quotations  about  the  Gentiles,  in  previous  chapters  and 
here,  is  pretty  large  ;  but  if  he  had  so  needed,  or  desired,  he  could 
easily  have  centupled  the  count.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  full  of 
such  proofs  of  the  coming  recognition  and  salvation  of  the  Gentile 
world. 

Verses  14-21.  But  I  am  persuaded,  my  brethren,  also 
myself,  concerning  you,  that  yourselves  also  are  full  of 
goodness,  having  been  filled  -with  all  knowledge,  being  able 
also  to  admonish  one  another.  But  I  "write  to  you  more 
boldly,  in  part,  as  again  reminding  you ;  on  account  of  the 


378  EXPOSITION. 

grace  that  was  given  me  from  God,  to  the  end  that  I  should 
be  a  ministrant  at  the  altar  of  Christ  Jesus,  as  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  in  order  that  my  obla- 
tion of  the  Gentiles  may  become  acceptable,  having  been 
sanctified  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  have  therefore  the  boasting 
in  Christ  Jesus  in  the  things  towards  God.  For  I  will  not 
dare  to  speak  of  any  of  the  things  which  Christ  did  not 
work  through  me,  unto  obedience  of  Gentiles,  by  word  and 
work,  in  power  of  signs  and  wonders,  in  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  So  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  in  circuit  as  far  as 
Illyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ ;  but 
[I  have  done  so]  being  ambitious  so  to  preach  the  gospel; 
not  where  Christ  was  named,  that  I  may  not  build  upon 
another's  foundation;  nay,  but  [to  preach]  according  as  it 
has  been  written, 

They  to  whom  nothing  w^as  announced  concerning  him 
will  see ; 

And  they  that  have  not  heard,  will  understand. 

(Is!i.  lii,  15.) 

The  apostle  has  twice  admonished  his  brethren  to  forbearance 
towards  one  another.  (Rom.  xiv,  1;  xv,  7.)  But  he  now  changes 
his  tone ;  and,  in  the  verses  before  us,  he  turns  from  his  words  of 
apostolical  authority  to  tlie  words  of  fraternal  compliment.  He 
tells  his  bi-ethren  that  they  really  need  no  words  of  admonition, 
except  such  as  they  can  administer  to  one  another.  He  uses  the 
eini)hatic  pronouns  to  make  his  point  clear:  I  am  myself  per- 
suaded that  ye  yourselves  are  good,  and  wise,  and  able  to 
admonish  one  another.  Yet  he  says  that,  notwithstanding  his 
opinion  concerning  them,  he  has  been  more  free,  in  part,  to  write 
them  these  admonitions  (not  enjoining  a  burden  on  them),  but 
only  by  way  of  reminder.  But  I  write  you  the  more  boldly, 
on  acount  of  the  grace  which  God  gave  me  to  be  an  apostle, 
and  in  the  line  of  this  authority. 

The  next  verse,  the  sixteenth,  is  the  only  passage  in  tliese 
letters  in  which  even  a  quasi-priestly  function  is  asci-ibed  to  the 
gospel  minister.  And  liere  the  apostle's  words  are  evidently  only 
a  figurative  appropriation  of  the  terms  of  the  Jewish  ritual  to  the 
evangelical  office  of  a  Christian  pajstor.  In  this  figurative  style, 
Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  set  apart,  to  the  end  that  lie  should  be  a 
ministrant  (or  sacrificant)  at  the  altar  of  God,  in  reference  to  the 


ROMANS  XV.    U-2L  379 

Gentiles,  officiating  in  this  gospel  priesthood,  to  offer  tliem  up,  as 
an  acceptable  oblation  to  God.  But  this  figure  of  a  priesthood, 
though  cast  in  a  Jewish  mold,  does  not  point  in  tlie  direction  of  tlie 
sacerdotalism  of  the  mediaeval  Roman  Catholic  Church  (and  later 
sacramentarians),  which  counts  all  Christian  ministers  (of  tlieir 
orders)  as  "  priests,"  in  the  old  Jewish  sense  of  the  word,  invested 
with  sacrificial  functions;  and  which  holds  that  these  priests,  in 
solemnizing  the  mass,  offer  up,  on  an  altar,  the  veritable  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  an  atoning  sacrifice.  Paul's  concept  of 
his  priestly  office  is  totally  different.  He  kneels  at  no  altar ;  but 
in  the  privacy  of  his  closet.  He  offers  no  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin  ; 
but  only  a  figurativ^e  oblation  of  the  body  of  ihe  Gentile  Church, 
a  thank-offering  to  God  for  his  mercies.  This  is  only  what  all 
evangelical  Christians  recognize- as  "  the  priesthood  of  believers," 
in  which  the  laity,  as  well  as  the  clergy,  offer  themselves  (and  all 
the  world)  a  sacrifice  to  God.  It  is  what  Paul  has  already  ex- 
pressed to  the  believers  in  Rome:  ''I  beseech  you,  brethren, 
through  the  mercies  of  God,  to  present  your  bodies  a  living  sac- 
fice,  holy,  well-pleasing,  to  God,  your  reasonable  service."  (Rom. 
xii,  1.)  This,  and  this  only,  is  Paul's  meaning  in  this  verse.  Yet, 
while  it  is  perfectly  aside  from  sacerdotalism,  never  before,  and 
never  after,  did  Paul  even  thus  incidentally  venture  on  this  far- 
fetched figure  of  a  Christian  priest,  to  describe  his  gospel  office. 
Christ  is  the  only  atoning  sacrifice  that  the  gospel  knows  anything 
of ;  and  the  Christian  minister  is  not  a  "  priest"  in  any  such  sacer- 
dotal sense  as  this.* 


*The  English  word  "priest"  is  but  a  shortened  form  of  the  old  Greek 
word  ifpea^vrepos,  "presbyter,"  which  occurs  twenty  times  in  the  Greek 
Testament,  in  the  sense  of  an  elder  in  the  Christian  Cliurch  (besides  other 
uses),  and  It  is  always  translated  "  elder."  This  is  the  proper  official  descrip- 
tion and  title  of  the  gospel  minister.  His  function  is  to  be  a  pastor,  and  to 
feed  the  flock  of  Christ.  The  Greek  word  applying  to  the  Jewish  priest  Is 
lepevs.  It  occurs  over  thirty  times.  This  word  iepevs  means  a  "  sacriflcer," 
which  was  the  proper  description  and  title  in  the  Greek  Testament  of  the 
Jewish  priests;  though  it  is  always  translated,  in  the  English  Bible,  by  the 
perverted  word  "  priest."  But  the  meaning  of  the  word  Iepevs  is  clear.  It 
was  of  the  function  of  the  priesthood  to  offer  sacrifice.  And  so  It  is  said, 
"  Every  priest  Is  ordained  to  offer  sacrifice  for  sins."  (Heb.  v,  i.)  This  is 
never  the  function  of  the  Christian  minister,  or  "elder;"  but  this  Is  the 
conception  which  the  sacramentarlan  Church  of  Rome  would  fain  attacli 
to  the  Christian  ministry;  and  which,  in  the  course  of  long  centuries  of 
unobstructed  perversion  of  the  truth,  it  succeeded  in  imposing  upon  the 
Greek-English  word  "priest"  (that  is,  presbyter,  elder),  the  New  Testa- 
ment name  for  the  non-sacei'dotal  minister  of  Jesus  Christ.    What  a  his- 


380  EXPOSITION. 

The  word  therefore,  in  verse  17,  is  Paul's  reference  to  the 
gruee  granted  him  to  be  Christ's  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  ;  and  to  his 
inference  tliat  he  has  a  boasting  over  liis  labors  in  this  field,  which 
was  all  his  own.  lie  declares  that  of  nothing  else  will  he  boast,  of 
nt)thing  done  by  others  in  this  field,  and  of  nothing  done  by  him- 
self in  fields  outside  of  his  projjer  geographical  and  ethnical  limits. 
In  this  spirit,  he  says,  I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  the 
things  which  Christ  did  not  work  through  me.  Tlie  sentence 
is  plain;  but  the  sense  may  be  rendered  clearer  by  dropping  the 
double  negative:  "I  will  speak  only  of  the  things  which  Christ 
wrought  by  me."  And  he  describes,  incidentally,  but  too  briefly, 
the  geographical  range  of  his  work.  It  reached  from  Jerusalem, 
in  a  circuit  through  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  to  Illyria,  on  the  Adri- 
atic S^a.  The  description  embraces,  substantially,  ths  eastern  half 
of  the  Roman  Empire.  Mucli  of  it  he  traversed  many  times ;  and 
though  he  does  not  tell  us  how  many  Churches  he  founded,  or  the 
number  of  his  converts  to  Christ,  yet  he  says  that  within  these 
extremes,  from  east  to  west,  he  had  fully  preached  the  gospel 
of  Christ.  The  Church  at  Rome  was  quite  certainly  largely  com- 
posed of  representative  converts  from  Paul's  provincial  Churches, 
whom  he  knew  personally,  and  to  whom  he  now  sends  his  greet- 
ings. Paul  drove  his  plow  in  virgin  soil ;  he  was  ambitious  not 
to  preach  where  Christ  was  named,  nor  to  build  on  other  men's 
foundations.  His  motto  is  found  in  Isaiah's  description  of  Mes- 
siah's work:  "  The  Gentiles  to  whom  Christ  was  not  yet  preached 
shall  now  hear  and  understand." 

tory  do  those  divergent  senses  of  the  one  word  "presbyter"  (In  the  New 
Testament  an  "elder,"  and  In  the  Roman  Church  a  "sacrlflcer")  reveal 
to  us  of  the  corruption  of  the  dark  ages,  and  of  encroachment  of  the 
Roman  hlerarcliy  I  The  change  In  the  form  of  the  word,  from  "  presbyter  " 
to  "  priest,"  is  of  little  slguKlcance;  but  the  change  In  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Is  vital,  and  fatal  to  the  evangelical  truth.  We  need  to  be  watchful 
against  the  iinijosture  that  lies  concealed  In  the  word.  While  the  word 
"priest"  is  idHUtically  the  old  New  Testlment  word  "presbyter,"  for 
"elder,"  and  ought  to  retain  the  old  meaning,  yet  the  sense  which  papal 
Rome,  and  the  sacranientarlans  of  other  confessions,  attach  to  it,  is  not  the 
New  Testament  sense  of  the  word.  Rome  and  Anglican  High-churchmen 
Impose  upon  the  New  Testament  word  "presbyter"  (elder)  the  sense  that 
properly  belongs  to  the  New  Testament  word  iepei/j,  a  sacrlflcer.  And  so, 
Instead  of  designating  themselves  as  Christian  "elders,"  they  (at  least 
In  the  rituals  of  ordination,  and  especially  of  the  Lord's  Supper)  arrogate  to 
themselves  the  name  of  "  priest,"  because  this  word,  with  its  warped  mean- 
ing, l)ecomos  subservient  to  their  sacramentarianism.  With  the  help  of 
a  false  philology  they  dupe  the  people  (and  are  duped)  Into  a  false  theology. 


ROMANS  XV.    22-29.  381 

Verses  22-29.  Wherefore  also  I  was  hindered  these 
many  times,  from  coming  unto  you.  But  now  no  longer 
having  place  in  these  regions,  but  having  from  many  years 
a  longing  to  come  unto  you,  whenever  I  may  go  unto 
Spain  ;  (for  I  hope  when  passing  through  to  visit  you,  and 
by  you  to  be  sent  forward  there,  if  first  I  be  filled  in  part, 
with  your  company),  but  now  I  am  setting  out  unto  Je- 
rusalem, ministering  to  the  saints.  For  Macedonia  and 
Achaia  thought  well  to  make  some  contribution  unto  the 
poor  of  the  saints  that  are  in  Jerusalem ;  for  they  thought 
well ;  and  they  are  their  debtors  ;  for  if  the  Gentiles  shared 
in  their  spiritual  things,  they  ought  also  to  minister  to 
them  in  the  carnal  things.  When,  therefore,  I  have  finished 
this,  and  have  sealed  to  them  this  fruit,  I  will  come  away 
through  you  unto  Spain.  But  I  know  that  when  I  come 
unto  you,  I  shall  come  in  the  fullness  of  the  blessing  of 
Christ. 

The  conjunction  wherefore  connects  back  to  the  previous 
verses,  in  which  Paul  shows  how,  in  his  wide  field  of  work,  he  liad 
so  fully  preached  Christ".  "Wherefore,"  he  continues  (that  is,  in 
view  of  these  absorbing  labors),  I  was  being  hindered  these 
many  times  from  coming  to  you.  But  now  [the  word  is 
emphatic,  >io;t'],  no  longer  having  place  [that  is,  fresh  opening] 
in  these  regions,  I  can  gratify  my  longing,  from  many 
years  past,  to  visit  you. 

The  grammatical  construction  in  the  paragraph  is  broken,  but 
the  continuous  sense  is  clear.  In  the  following  verses  he  declares 
his  purpose  to  make  a  missionary  journey  to  Spain  ;  and  he  joins 
this  expression  of  his  purpose  with  a  hope  to  make  the  journey  an 
occasion  for  the  visit  to  Rome:  I  hope,  on  my  journey  to 
Spain,  to  visit  you,  and  by  you  to  be  helped  forward 
thither ;  and  then  he  adds  the  courteous  words,  if  I  be  first 
somew^hat  filled  with  my  stay  w^ith  you. 

The  question  arises  wliether  this  desire  to  visit  Rome,  and  to 
preach  thei*e,  and  to  impart  to  them  some  spiritual  gift,  infringes 
on  his  settled  policy  "  not  to  preach  where  Christ  was  named." 
In  answering  this  question,  we  must  recollect  the  other  condition 
which  really  is  what  he  means,  that  he  would  not  huild  on  an- 
other's foundation.  His  incidental  preaching  as  a  visitor  would 
be  no  infringement  of  his  general  purpose.    But  at  any  rate  Rome 


382  EXJ'OSITIoy. 

was  not  within  tlie  field  of  any  other  iipostle,  certainly  not  of 
Peter,  who  was  never  in  Home.  And  the  probability  is  tliat  the 
Church  at  Rome  was  made  up  of  Paul's  own  converts  from  else- 
where, and  so  was  really  witliin  tlie  terms  of  his  own  rule. 

Did  Paul  ever  visit  Spain?  Ilis  purpose  of  an  immediate  jour- 
ney thither  was  defeated  by  his  imprisonment  of  two  years  at 
Csesarea,  and  of  two  years  more  at  liome.  Ecclesiastical  tradition 
credits  him  with  having  finally  carried  out  his  purpose.  But  aside 
from  his  own  expressed  purpose,  and  these  vague  traditions,  we 
know  nothing. 

But  Paul's  plans  now  were  settled ;  his  face  was  fixed  towards 
Rome,  and  Spain;  yet  he  tells  the  Romans  that  he  must  first  see 
Jerusalem.  He  has  an  errand  of  inerey  to  the  poor  of  the  mother 
Church.  Since  the  days  of  tlie  communal  experiment  at  Jerusa- 
lem, after  the  Pentecost  (Acts  iv,  32),  the  Church  there  had  a 
large  element  of  poor  people,  dependent  on  the  aid  of  others. 
This  chronic  pauperism  had  now  lasted  nearly  thirty  years ;  and 
it  probably  lasted  till  the  destruction  of  the  city,  by  Titus,  A.  D.  70. 
In  Paul's  agreement  on  terms  of  peace  with  the  apostles,  at  the 
Council  at  Jerusalem,  they  stipulated  with  him  that  in  his  Gen- 
tile Churches  he  should  remember  the  poor  at  Jerusalem.  This 
he  did  over  and  over  again  ;  and  one  such  collection  from  the 
Churches  of  Macedonia  and  Aehaia  was  now  in  liis  hands,  to  carry 
to  Jerusalem.  But  he  says  tliat  when  he  has  fulfilled  his  mission 
to  the  Jews,  he  will  promptly  set  out  to  Spain,  taking  Rome  in  his 
course.  And  he  adds  that,  I  know  that  I  shall  come  in  the 
fullness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ. 

Verses  30-33.  But  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  through  the  love  of  the  Spirit, 
to  agonize  with  me,  in  your  prayers  to  God,  on  my  behalf, 
that  I  may  be  rescued  from  them  in  Judea,  that  obey  not 
[the  Lord  Jesus  Christ],  and  that  my  ministry  unto  Jeru- 
salem may  become  acceptable  to  the  saints ;  in  order 
that  I  may  come  to  you,  with  joy,  through  the  will  of  God, 
and  may  be  refreshed  with  you.  But  the  God  of  peace  be 
w^ith  you  all.    Amen. 

Paul's  eiTand  to  Jerusalem  was  one  of  mercy.  It  was  his 
fifth  journey  to  the  Holy  City.  It  hjid  been  four  years  since  his 
la.st  flying  visit ;  nnd  tlie  breach  now  between  him  and  tlie  Jews  was 
cjompiuLe.    He  felt  unusual  solicitude  with  regard  to  his  reception, 


ROMANS  XV.   30-3S.  383 

and  even  his  safety.  No  Jew  looked  with  kindly  eye  upon  tlie 
renegade  from  Moses  and  the  customs  of  the  fathers.  The  non- 
Christian  Jews  hated  him  ;  and  even  the  believers  felt  little  affec- 
tion for  him.  He  knew  the  enmity  of  the  former;  he  was  uncer- 
tain of  the  attitude  of  the  latter.  And  so,  in  these  verses,  he 
beseeches  the  brethren  at  Rome,  by  all  the  motives  he  could  name, 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  through  the  love  of 
the  Spirit,  to  join  him  in  agonizing  prayers  to  God,  on  his  behalf. 
Yet  the  utmost  that  he  could  hope,  and  all  that  he  asked  in  prayer, 
was  to  be  rescued  from  the  disobedient,  and  not  to  be  rejected 
by  the  saints.  His  fears  were  only  too  well  founded.  The  story  of 
the  bitter  vindictiveness  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  lukewarmness,  or 
even  ingratitude  of  the  brethren,  who  needed  to  be  conciliated,  if 
not  reconciliated  to  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  is  most  graphically 
told  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     (Acts  xxi,  17.) 

Paul  did  not  come  to  Rome,  as  he  hoped,  with  joy,  but  in 
chains.  Yet  the  Church  to  which  this  letter  was  sent,  still  existed  ; 
and  on  the  apostle's  approach,  though  a  prisoner,  "  the  brethren 
from  thence,  when  they  heard  of  us  [it  is  Luke  who  writes ;  and 
his  pronoun  shows  that  he  was  with  Paul],  came  forty  miles,  to 
meet  us;  w^hom  when  Paul  saw,  he  thanked  God,  and  took  cour- 
age." (Acts  xxviii,  15.)  Nearly  thirty  of  these  "  brethren  "  were 
Paul's  personal  friends  ;  and  they  ought  to  have  "taken  his  part ;" 
but  where  they  were  during  the  next  two  years  (and,  later,  during 
his  second  imprisonment,  and  at  his  death),  is  one  of  the  perplex- 
ing puzzles  of  history.  Yet  we  possibly  have  a  clue  to  their 
presence,  and  practical  intervention  in  his  behalf,  in  the  last  sen- 
tence in  the  Acts.  "And  he  abode  two  whole  years  in  his  own 
liired  lodging,  and  received  all  that  went  in  unto  him,  preaching 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  the  things  concerning  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  with  all  boldness,  none  forbidding  him."  (Acts 
xxviii,  30.)  It  is  in  this  liome,  hut  in  chains  (Acts  xxviii,  20),  that 
the  sacred  history  finally  leaves  him. 


CHAPTER  XYI. 


Verses  1,  2.  But  I  commend  to  you  Phcebe  our  sister, 
being  deaconess  of  the  Church  that  is  in  Cenchrea  ;  that 
ye  may  receive  her  in  the  Lord,  worthily  of  the  saints,  and 
that  ye  may  assist  her  in  whatever  affair  she  may  need 
you;  and  [do  so],  for  she  herself  became  a  helper  of  many, 
and  of  myself. 

Cencliroa  was  the  eastern  seaport  of  Corinth,  distant  about 
nine  miles.  Though  a  dependency  of  Corinth,  the  capital  of  the 
province,  it  was  itself  a  flourishing  city,  and  was  probably  the  site 
of  a  Jewish  synagogue.  Phoebe,  whom  the  apostle  commends  to 
the  assistance  of  the  Romans,  was  servant,  or  deaconess  of  the 
Church  in  Cenchrea.  The  term  "deaconess"  here  applied  to 
her,  marked  the  beginning  thus  early  of  the  office  which  after- 
wards became  a  regular  order  in  the  Church ;  and  which,  after 
falling  into  neglect,  is  now  being  revived  in  all  Protestant  Churches. 
Phrebe's  office  in  tliut  Greek  city,  where  the  sexes  were  socially 
apart,  shows  that  she  was  a  woman  of  mature  age,  and  probably  a 
widow.  Her  errand  to  Rome  was,  as  the  Greek  word  here  trans- 
lated affair,  means  some  "  matter  of  law."  And  the  apostle  takes 
advantage  of  her  journey  thither,  to  make  her  the  bearer  of  this 
Epistle.  His  words  of  commendation  give  us  another  play  on 
words,— literally  translated,  stand  by  her,  for  she  has  been  a 
stand  by  of  many,  and  of  myself.  This  position  which  ex- 
presses her  general  work  in  the  new  Church,  imjjlies  that  not  only 
was  she  a  person  worthy  to  be  trusted  with  those  functions,  but 
that,  like  Lydia  (Acts  xvi,  14),  she  was  able  from  her  private 
means,  to  extend  assistance  to  those  in  need.  It  must  have  been 
in  the  way  of  personal  services  that  she  helped  Paul.  His  health 
was  always  infirm,  and  he  depended  largely  on  the  ministrations 
of  others.  Upon  his  first  visit  to  Corinth,  which  lasted  eighteen 
montlis,  he  was  the  guest  of  his  Jewish  friends,  Aquila  and  Pris- 

384 


ROMAXS  XVI.    .}-/i;.  385 

cilia.  Upon  his  second  visit,  he  was  the  guest  of  Gaius,  a  wealthy 
and  liberal  Gentile,  whom  Paul  calls  "  my  host,  and  the  host  of 
the  whole  Church."  Here  he  was  also  brought  under  personal 
obligations  to  Phc^be,  "  the  helper  of  many,  aiid  of  myself."  Phrebe 
is  the  only  woman  of  all  Paul's  friends  whom  he  calls  our  sister. 
These  words,  "our  sister,"  are  found  also  in  the  English  transla- 
tion of  Philemon,  verse  2,  but  the  Greek  there  is  "the  sister;" 
and  Apphia  is  the  only  other  woman  whom  he  calls  "  sister."  But 
it  was  in  Phoebe's  position  of  a  "  woman  of  affairs,"  that  she  had 
legal  business  to  look  after  away  from  her  home.  Aside  from 
these  few  points,  we  know  nothing  of  this  excellent  woman,  the 
forerunner  of  a  mighty  host  of  "  deaconesses,"  consecrated  helpers 
in  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Verses  3-16.  Salute  Prisca  and  Aquila,  my  fello"w- 
workers  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  for  my  life  laid  down  their 
own  neck,  whom  not  I  alone  thank,  nay,  but  also  all  the 
Churches  of  the  Gentiles :  and  salute  the  Church  in  their 
house.  Salute  Epaenetus  my  beloved,  who  is  the  firstfruits 
of  Asia  unto  Christ.  Salute  Mary,  who  toiled  much  upon 
you.  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen,  and  my 
fellow-prisoners,  who  are  notable  among  the  apostles,  who 
also  became  in  Christ  before  me.  Salute  Amplias,  my  be- 
loved in  the  Lord.  Salute  Urbanus,  our  fellow-worker  in 
Christ,  and  Stachys  my  beloved.  Salute  Apelles,  the  ap- 
proved in  Christ.  Salute  them  that  are  from  the  house- 
hold of  Aristobulus.  Salute  Herodion,  my  kinsman.  Salute 
them  that  are  from  the  household  of  Narcissus,  who  are 
in  the  Lord.  Salute  Tryphsena  and  Tryphosa,  who  toil  in 
the  Lord.  Salute  Persis,  the  beloved,  who  toiled  much  in 
the  Lord.  Salute  Rufus,  the  elect  in  the  Lord,  and  his 
mother,  and  mine.  Salute  Asyncritus,  Phlegon,  Hermas, 
Patrobas,  Hermes,  and  the  brethren  that  are  with  them. 
Salute  Philologus,  and  Julia,  Nereus  and  his  sister,  and 
Olympas,  and  all  the  saints  that  are  with  them.  Salute 
one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  All  the  Churches  of  Christ 
salute  you. 

This  long  paragrapli  of  personal  salutations  is  very  interest- 
ing, botli  for  the  insight  which  it  gives  us  into  Paul's    private 
life  and  cliaracter,  and  for  tlie  light  which  it  slieds,  tliough  so 
meager,  upon   the   constitution   of    the    Church    at    Rome    (and 
25 


386  EXPOSITION. 

doubtless  elsewhere),  and  the  personal  relations  of  the  members 
to  one  another. 

The  fact  that  Paul  sends  greetings  to  at  least  twenty-five  i)er- 
sons  by  name,  and  to  many  others  in  a  less  specific  way,  but  of 
whom  he  evidently  had  personal  information,  has  led  some  critics 
to  think  that  this  chapter  was  really  addressed,  not  to  Rome, 
where  he  had  never  been,  but  was  probably  addressed,  though  as 
a  supplement  to  a  duplicate  of  this  Epistle,  to  the  Church  at 
Ephesus,  where  he  so  long  resided,  and  where  he  must  have  known 
many  believers  individually.  This  view  is  plausible ;  but  the  cu- 
mulative evidence  in  favor  of  Rome  is  strong,  and  for  the  present 
decisive.  And  we  must  find  the  explanation  of  the  apostle's 
knowing  so  many  of  the  believers  in  Rome  in  the  probability 
already  named  (Rom.  xv,  20),  that  they  were  converts  from  his 
Churches  throughout  the  provincial  Roman  world.  We  know  that 
this  was  the  fact  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  whom  he  had  known 
(and  probably  led  to  Christ)  at  Corinth;  and  it  must  have  been 
the  case  with  quite  a  number  of  others,  of  whom  he  speaks  as 
kinsmen.  It  is  possible,  however,  also  that  he  had  learned  the 
names  of  some  of  these  people  from  the  reports  that  had  come  to 
him  from  the  city:  "Your  faith  is  proclaimed  throughout  the 
whole  world."     (Rom.  i,  8.) 

These  salutations  by  name,  while  we  can  not  appreciate  all 
the  points,  were  a  stronger  evidence  of  his  personal  regard,  and 
much  more  persuasive  to  the  Romans,  especially  where  so  many 
were  named,  than  a  general  greeting,  as  so  often  elsewhere, 
"Peace  be  to  the  brethren."  And  this  special  mention  of  per- 
sons, whose  names  would  otherwise  have  been  unknown  to  us,  has 
given  them  an  historic  place  and  fame  for  all  the  ages  to  come ; 
and  has  led  to  many  curious  and  instructive  attempts  to  trace 
them  and  their  position  in  the  Church. 

The  names,  with  perhaps  one  exception,  "Mary,"  are  Greek 
or  Latin  ;  but  this  does  not  determine  the  nationality  of  the  per- 
sons, and  might  indicate  only  that  they  were  Hellenists,  not  Hel- 
lenes. The  names  of  seven  deacons  in  Acts  vi,  5,  are  all  Greek, 
but  the  men  were  all  Jews,  with  one  exception.  The  probability 
is  that,  while  the  Church  at  Rome  was  preponderantly  Gentile, 
most  of  those  here  named  were  Jews.  Paul  greets  at  least  six 
persons  as  his  "kinsmen"  who  were  Jews  beyond  question;  and 
we  may  safely  say  the  same  of  quite  a  number  more. 

The  first  persons  to  whom  Paul  sends  salutations  are  Aquila 


RO}fANS  XVI.    .i-16.  387 

and  Priscilla.  They  were  Jews  from  Pontus,  tent-makers  by 
trade,  whose  business  led  them  to  many  places.  Paul  found  them 
at  Corinth  (A.  D.  53),  where  he  staid  a  year  and  a  half,  "  and  he 
abode  with  them."  (Acts  xviii,  2.)  A  year  or  two  later  they 
went  with  Paul  to  Ephesus  (Acts  xviii,  18)  ;  and  now,  after  a  few 
years,  at  the  date  of  this  Epistle  (A.  D.  58),  we  find  them  again  in 
Rome,  and  yet  again,  perhaps  eight  years  later,  we  hear  of  them 
once  more  at  Ephesus.  (2  Tim.  iv,  19.)  They  were  people  of  prop- 
erty and  of  social  prominence ;  and  at  each  of  their  places  of 
residence  they  had  "  a  Church  in  their  house." 

AVhether  the  Church  in  their  house  included  all  tlie  believ- 
ers in  Eome  is  doubtful.  The  first  places  for  Christian  worship 
were  (when  accessible)  the  Jewish  synagogues.  But  soon  excluded 
from  these,  the  disciples  next  met  in  schoolhouses  (Acts  xix,  9), 
private  dwellings,  or  any  chance  place  (as  Paul's  private  lodgings. 
Acts  xxviii,  30).  It  was  two  centuries  after  Christ  before  church 
buildings  were  common.  Meanwhile  families,  like  the  one  before 
us,  sheltered  the  congregations  in  their  homes  ;  and  in  a  large  city 
like  Rome  perhaps  several  such  centers  for  Christian  worship  were 
found.  Is  this  the  meaning  of  verses  14  and  15, — the  brethren, 
— the  saints  that  are  with  them? 

Paul  tlianks  these  endeared  friends,  and  says  that  all  the 
Churches  of  the  Gentiles  thank  them  for  saving  his  life  at 
their  personal  risk.  The  phrase  laid  down  their  own  neck,  is 
probably  figurative ;  but  it  expresses  some  extreme  peril  to  which 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  exposed  themselves  to  spare  him.  We  know 
not  the  occasion  ;  but  it  comes  within  the  uncounted,  unnarrated 
"  perils,"  which  he  eight  times'lists  in  his  catalogue  to  the  Corin- 
thians.    (2  Cor.  xi,  26.) 

Epfenetus,  in  the  fifth  verse,  is  called  the  firstfruits  of  Asia 
unto  Christ.  The  word  "Asia"  means  simply  the  Roman  province 
of  that  name,  of  which  Ephesus  was  the  capital,  and  in  which  were 
the  seven  Churches  of  the  Apocalypse.  (Rev.  i,  4.)  Paul's  first 
visit  to  Ephesus,  and  the  founding  of  the  Christian  Church  at  that 
center,  was  in  the  year  54,  on  his  way  home,  after  his  second  mis- 
sionary tour,  from  Corinth,  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  (Acts 
xix,  19.)  If  Epaenetus  was  one  of  Paul's  converts,  as  seems  im- 
plied by  the  word  "  firstfruits,"  and  the  endearing  title  my 
beloved,  he  had  probably  afterwards  gone  to  Rome  with  Aquila 
and  Priscilla. 

The  name  "  Mary  "  is  strictly  "  Maria  ;"  and  a  various  reading 


388  EXPnSTTTOy. 

givt's  us  Mariam,  the  same  as  tlie  genuiiic  Jewish  form  "Miriam" 
— which  was  also  the  name  of  Christ's  muther.  If  this  be  accepted, 
it  is  the  only  real  Jewish  name  in  the  list.  The  fact  which  Paul 
mentions  in  regai-d  to  her,  that  she  toiled  much  upon  you, 
shows  that  he  was  minutely  informed  of  the  home  affairs  of  the 
Roman  Church.  Can  we  not  count  Mary  and  the  three  women 
named  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  verses  as  "deaconesses"  in 
the  work  of  the  Churcli? 

The  names  in  the  seventh  verse  seem  to  be  of  husband  and 
wife,  "Andronicus  and  Junia  ;"  thougii  the  latter  name  may  be 
read  "  Junias,"  in  the  masculine  gender.  Paul  calls  them  my 
kinsmen,  which  word  signifies  probably  not  members  of  his 
family,  but  Jews;  and  yet  not  even  that  word  too  broadly  (as  he 
uses  it  in  other  places,  "my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  who 
are  Israelites"  (Rom.  ix,3)) ;  for  there  are  others  in  the  list  who 
are  Jews,  but  whom  he  does  not  call  "  kinsmen."  The  word 
probably  means  here,  and  in  verse  eleven  ("  Herodion,  ray  kins- 
man"), members  of  his  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Those  two  he  says 
were  his  fellow-prisoners ;  but  we  do  not  know  on  what  occasion. 
The  apostle's  history,  to  this  date,  names  expressly  only  the  brief 
detention  at  Philippi.  Yet  we  know  from  what  he  tells  the 
Corinthians  that  he  had  already  been  "  in  prisons  more  abun- 
dantly." (2  Cor.  xi,  23.)  Further,  he  says,  that  these  fellow- 
tribesmen,  fellow-prisoners  of  liis,  were  in  Christ  before  himself; 
and  "were  notable  among  the  apostles.  The  last  woi-ds  are 
ambiguous;  but  they  probaljly  mean  only  that  Andronicus  and 
Junia  were  well  known  in  apostolic  circles;  yet  there  is  nothing 
in  the  meaning  o(  the  word  "  apostles  "  to  exclude  those  lay-people 
from  being  themselves  of  that  number.  Perhaps  they  were  lay- 
preachers,  evangelists,  among  the  founders  of  the  Roman  Church. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Urbanus,  whom  Paul  greets  as  our 
fellow-worker  in  Christ;  where  the  plural  pronoun  "our"  sig- 
nifies that  Urbanus  was  counted  not  with  Paul  only,  but  also  with 
the  other  "  workers  "  in  Rome. 

The  words  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  verses,  "Salute  them 
that  are  from  the  household  of  Aristobulus  ...  of  Narcissus,"  are 
suggestive  of  a  striking  condition  of  things  in  Rome,  and  in  the 
Church.  The  word  household  is  not  given  in  the  Greek  of  these 
verses  ;  but  instead  thereof  the  word  "  slaves  "  would  more  exactly 
express  the  meaning.    The  two  persons  named  were  rich,  and  had 


ROMANS  XVI.    n-m.  389 

large  slave  families.  Aristobulus  was  grandson  of  Herod  tlie 
Great ;  but  lived  at  Rome  ;  and  Narcissus  was  the  corrupt  freed- 
man  of  Claudius.  Of  course  they  were  not  Christians;  and  both 
had  died  a  few  years  before  the  date  of  this  letter.  After  their 
death  their  large  slave  families,  numbering  probably  many  hun- 
dred persons,  were  confiscated  by  the  emperor,  Nero,  and  were 
kept  unbroken  among  the  emperor's  yet  larger  slave  family.  At 
a  later  day,  Paul,  in  writing  from  Rome  to  the  Philipi)ians,  says, 
"All  the  saints  salute  you,  especially  they  [the  slaves]  that  are  of 
Caesar's  [Nero's]  slave  household."  (Phil,  iv,  22.)  The  text  of 
both  passages  implies  that  some  of  these  slaves  were  Christians. 
To  these  slaves,  the  apostle,  not  knowing  their  names,  but  knowing 
of  their  relation  to  the  body  of  Christ,  now  affectionately  sends  his 
greetings.     "  He  was  not  ashamed  of  their  bonds." 

The  next  names  in  his  list  are  those  of  three  women  who 
toiled  in  the  service  of  the  Lord.  It  is  possible  that  they,  too, 
were  slaves.  Their  names  are  Tryphena,  Tryphosa,  and  Persis ; 
but  the  meaning  of  those  words  ("  Luxurious,  Wanton,  Persian"), 
implies  that  they  were  significant  names,  given  to  them  with  allu- 
sion to  their  destined  ill  life  as  slaves.  From  such  a  life  the  gospel 
of  Christ  has  saved  them. 

In  the  thirteenth  verse,  Paul  sends  his  regards  to  Rufus,  that 
choice  man  in  the  Lord,  and  his  mother  and  mine.  The 
last  words  are  a  touch  of  delicate  and  affectionate  remembrance, 
that  has  no  superior  in  all  literature.  It  is  his  grateful  and  ten- 
der tribute  to  her  maternal  care  of  himself  in  some  hour  when  he 
needed,  and  received  from  her,  such  services  as  "mother"  only 
could  extend. 

Philologus  and  Julia  are  probably  another  instance  of  husband 
and  wife ;  who,  like  Aquila  and  Priseilla,  were  workers  in  the 
Church,  and  liad  their  doors  open  to  the  gatherings  of  the  saints, 
all  the  saints  that  are  with  them. 

Verses  17-20.  But  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  mark 
them  that  make  the  divisions,  and  the  offenses  against  the 
teaching  w^hich  ye  learned ;  and  turn  away  from  them. 
For  the  men  of  such  sort  do  not  serve  our  Lord  Christ ;  nay, 
but  their  own  belly ;  and  through  their  excellent  talk  and 
fair  talk,  they  beguile  the  hearts  of  the  innocent.  For  your 
obedience  came  abroad  unto  all  raen.    Over  you,  therefore, 


390  EXPOSITION. 

I  rejoice ;  but  I  will  that  ye  be  wise  unto  that  which  is  good, 
but  simple  unto  that  which  is  bad.    But  the  God  of  peace 
will  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet  speedily. 
The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  be  with  you. 

The  salutations  that  precede  seem  the  fitting  close  of  the 
Epistle  ;  but  Paul  has  left  to  this  place  one  solemn  duty  ;  and  he 
now  adds  a  warning  against  an  evil  graver  tiian  tlie  disputes  about 
foods  and  drinks.  Tiiis  warning  is,  to  mark  the  men  w^ho  make 
the  divisions  in  the  Church,  and  the  scandals  against  the 
doctrine  which  ye  learned.  Tiie  presence  liere  of  the  article 
"  ?/t?  divisions"  and  '*</;<' scandals,"  and  theem[)hasis(in  the  Greek) 
on  the  pronoun  "  ye,"  and  the  drift  of  the  entire  passage,  show  that 
the  apostle  is  not  dealing  with  an  imaginary  case  which  may  yet 
arise  in  Rome,  but  with  an  actual  condition  of  things.  The  evil 
existed  ;  but  how  widely  it  had  spread  we  do  iKjt  know.  But  we 
know  quite  certainly  on  what  j)i>ints  the  divisions  arose,  and  what 
the  scandals  against  Paul's  doctrine  were.  Tliere  were  partisans, 
or  factions,  in  Kunie  (of  Jews,  ur  of  mijlcd  Gentiles),  just  as  in 
Corinth,  and  Galatia,  and  probably  in  all  of  Paul's  Churches. 
These  were  partisans  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  of  his  retroactive 
prejudice  against  the  gospel  which  Paul  preached.  These  men 
were  prompt  to  promote  disaffection  to  the  person  of  Paul,  and  to 
discredit  his  apostolical  authority.  Though  Peter  had  never  been 
in  Rome,  any  more  than  in  Corinth,  doubtless  there  were  men 
there  wlio  knew  him,  and  sided  with  him  and  his  conservatism  as 
against  Paul  and  "  jiis  gospel."  Those  men,  nominal  Christians, 
were  not  seeking  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  extension  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  Gentile  world,  but  were  self-seekers  rending  the 
garments  of  Christ,  and  wounding  his  body,  for  their  own  greed, 
or  the  gratification  of  their  appetites.  Their  advocacy  of  Peter, 
and  of  circumcision,  was  making  "the  divisions"  in  the  Church, 
and  was  making  "the  scandals"  against  the  doctrine  which  the 
Romans  had  learned  from  Paul  (or  his  friends),  the  doctrine  of 
the  liberty  of  the  Gentiles  from  all  Jewisli  bonds.  From  tliese 
dissension-sowers  Paul  bids  the  Romans  turn  way,  lest  with  their 
fair  talk  they  deceive  the  unwary.  But  lie  adds  that  tiie  luirt 
is  as  yet  small ;  for  your  obedience  to  the  truth  has  come 
abroad  to  all  men.  In  you  (your  steadfastness)  tiierefore  I 
rejoice.    But  1  should  be  glad  to  have  you  wise  to  everything  (like 


ROMANS  XVI.    31-23.  391 

"  my  gospel ")  that  is  good  ;  and  uncontaminated  by  anything  (like 
the  Jewish  leaven)  that  is  bad.  You  have  fightings  now  among 
you ;  but  the  God  of  peace  will  soon  crush  Satan,  in  the  per- 
son of  these  emissaries  of  his,  beneath  your  feet. 

Verses  21-23.  Timotheus,  my  fell o"w- worker,  salutes 
you ;  and  Lucius,  and  Jason,  and  Sosipater,  my  kinsmen. 
I,  Tertius,  who  write  the  Epistle,  salute  you  in  the  Lord. 
Gaius,  my  host,  and  of  the  whole  Church,  salutes  you. 
Erastus,  the  treasurer  of  the  city,  salutes  you,  and  Quartus 
the  brother. 

The  apostle  now,  to  his  own  many  salutations,  adds  some  spe- 
cial salutations  from  his  immediate  associates.  Timothy,  whom 
Paul  found  at  Lystra,  on  his  first  missionary  journey,  was  son  of 
a  Greek  father  and  a  Jewish  mother.  He  was  very  young  at 
that  date,  for  twenty  years  after,  Paul  exhorts  him,  "Let  no  one 
despise  thy  youth."  (1  Tim.  iv,  12.)  On  Paul's  second  journey, 
in  the  year  51,  he  took  Timothy  with  him,  and  made  him,  from 
that  time  on,  his  assistant  through  many  years  of  faithful  and 
varied  labor.  The  many  mentions  of  his  name  enable  us  to  trace 
him  all  along  Paul's  routes  of  travel,  and  in  all  his  mission  fields. 
He  was  with  Paul  in  Corinth  at  the  writing  of  this  letter,  and 
joined  him  in  his  salutations  to  the  Romans.  The  last  we  know 
of  him  is  during  Paul's  second  imprisonment  at  Rome  in  65, 
or  possibly  67.  At  that  date  Timothy  was  in  Ephesus,  and  prob- 
ably the  bishop  of  the  Church.  To  this  place  Paul  writes  him 
the  Second  Epistle,  and  begs,  as  his  dying  request,  that  his 
loved  disciple  should  "come  to  him,  before  the  winter,  with  all 
diligence." 

Of  Tertius,  whose  name  shows  that  he  was  of  a  Latin  family, 
we  know  only  what  he  himself  reveals  to  us,  that  he  was  Paul's 
amanuensis  in  writing  the  Epistle ;  and  with  the  pen  in  his  own 
hand  he  naturally  introduces  his  own  name  with  the  personal  pro- 
noun "I."  This  confirms  what  we  know  from  other  indications, 
that  Paul  dictated  all  his  letters.  The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
seems,  from  the  words  in  the  Authorized,  to  be  an  exception ;  but 
the  correct  translation  points  in  the  other  direction.  The  body  of 
the  letter  was  evidently  dictated;  but  at  tlie  last  Paul  takes  up 
the  pen  to  add,  with  hi.s  own  hands,  as  was  his  custom,  tiie  last 
words  to  authenticate  the  letter.     He  begins  his  autograpli  addi- 


392  EXPOSITION. 

tion  with  an  apology  for  his  ill-formed  writing,  "See  with  how 
large  scrawls,  I  write  to  you  with  my  own  hand."  (Gal.  v,  11.) 
The  explanation  and  defense  of  his  poor  writing  may  be  found  in 
the  seventeenth  verse  of  this  chapter,  "I  bear  the  brands  of  the 
Loi-d  Jesus  in  my  person," — that  is,  in  his  eyes,  which  were  yet 
dim  from  being  seared  at  his  conversion.  (Acts  ix,  18.)  Yet, 
aside  from  any  injury  to  his  siglit  then  received,  we  must  recollect 
that  Paul  was  now  getting  to  be  an  old  man,  and  needed  the  help 
of  others'  eyes  and  pen. 

Of  Gaius,  Paul's  host  at  Corinth,  and  the  host  of  the 
■whole  Church,  this  mention  shows  that  he  was  a  man  of  social 
distinction,  and  of  large  generosity.  He  was  one  of  Paul's  con- 
verts, on  his  first  visit  to  Corinth  ;  and  was  one  of  the  three  men, 
whom,  alone,  Paul  had  personally  baptized.     (1  Cor.  i,  14.) 

Verses  25-27.  But  to  him  that  is  able  to  establish  you 
according  to  my  gospel,  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
according  to  the  revelation  of  the  secret  doctrine  which 
has  been  undivulged  in  times  eternal,  but  now  was  mani- 
fested, and,  through  prophetic  Scriptures  made  known, 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  eternal  God,  unto 
all  the  Gentiles,  with  a  view  to  their  obedience  to  the  faith  ; 
to  the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,— to  whom  [to 
him  ?  ]  be  the  glory,  forever.    Amen. 

The  grammatical  construction  of  these  verses  is  perplexing. 
There  is  but  one  sentence.  The  first  word,  To  him,  an  indirect 
dative,  is  held  in  suspense  until  the  twenty-seventh  verse,  where 
the  word  to  .  .  .  God  stands  as  an  appositive,  and  the  sentence 
is  not  yet  finished.  Then  comes  a  subordinate  clause,  containing 
a  relative  pronoun,  which,  as  it  stanch,  must  refer  to  Christ,  to 
whom  be  the  glory.  This  is  the  only  possible  construction  for 
the  grammar  of  the  sentence.  But  this  attribution  of  the  glory 
to  Christ  (while  doctrinally  unobjectionable)  does  not  work  into 
the  sentence,  and  does  not  seem  to  be  the  apostle's  intention  in 
the  doxology.  He  begins  the  doxology,  and  continues,  with  words 
that  point  to  God.  Evidently  the  relative  pronoun  has  crept  into 
the  sentence  by  an  inadvertence  on  the  part  of  Paul  or  of  his 
amanuensis,  and  should  be  canceled  entirely ;  or  the  relative 
should  replaced  by  the  demonstrative  (personal)  pronoun  him, 
and  this  be  construed  as  another  emphatic  appositive  to  the  first 


ROMANS  XVI.    25-21.  393 

word  in  the  doxology,  "  To  him  ...  to  Qod.  ...  to  him  (I  say)  be 
the  glory." 

This  doxology,  which  closes  the  Epistle,  sums  up  in  terse  and 
telling  words  the  substance  of  the  entire  Epistle.  Paul  declares 
here  what  he  has  declared  in  all  the  preceding  chapters,  that  the 
gospel  which  he  preaches  is  a  gospel  of  universal  compass  ;  that  it 
was  God's  plan  from  eternity,  but  was  not  revealed  in  full  until 
now  that  it  is  accomplished  in  Christ.  The  expression,  my  gos- 
pel, is  Paul's  designation  of  the  full,  all-rounded  gospel  which  he 
preached  to  the  Gentiles,  as  contrasted  with  the  one-sided,  gar- 
bled gospel  of  the  Jewish,  anti-Gentile  sectarians.  I  have  dis- 
cussed the  Greek  word  mystery  (which  always  means  "secret," 
or  "secret  doctrine")  in  the  notes  on  a  previous  chapter  (Rom. 
xi,  25)  ;  and  have  there  shown  that  the  word  always  means  the 
primal  call  of  the  Gentiles  and  their  equality  with  the  Jews  in 
the  Church  of  Christ.  This  doctrine  was  eternally  true ;  but  Paul 
here  says  that  it  w^as  not  promulgated  in  former  ages,  but  is  now 
published  to  the  world,  and  made  known  (and  extended,  d%)  unto 
all  the  Gentiles  with  a  view  to  their  obedience  to  the  faith. 

Such  is  the  gospel  which  Paul  preached.  It  is  not  an  emascu- 
lated gospel.  It  is  circumscribed  by  no  limits  of  race,  or  color,  or 
previous  condition  of  servitude.  It  is  free  to  any  who  will  accept 
it.  And  this  plan  contemplated,  ideally,  the  acceptance  of  its 
provisions  by  all.  Judaism  in  the  days  of  Paul,  Calvinism  in 
modern  times,  teaches  that  God  foreordained  some  men  to  be 
saved,  and  left  the  rest  of  mankind  outside  the  pale  of  mercy. 
Paul  teaches  that  God  included  all  in  the  limits  of  the  gospel 
domain;  and  he  teaches  that  no  creature,  except  man  himself, 
will  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  Every  man  can  be  in  Christ;  and  every 
man  can  know  for  himself  that  he  is  in  Christ.  A  limited,  indi- 
vidual election  to  life  of  a  few,  and  a  wholesale  preterition  of  the 
rest  of  the  world  to  danmation,  has  no  place  in  Paul's  theology  ; 
and  can  not  be  read  into  this  Epistle.  Paul  declares  that  notwith- 
standing Jewish  exclusiveness,  Jewish  abhorrence  of  the  rest  of 
the  w^orld,  the  Gentiles  en  masse  are  embraced  equally  witli  them- 
selves, and  before  themselves,  in  the  divine  plan.  "But  those 
whom  he  thus  from  of  old  included  in  the  divine  plan  he  also  ' 
called;  and  those  whom  he  called,  he  also  justified;  and  those  ^ 
whom  he  justified  he  also  glorified."     Such  is  the  glorious  an-  : 


394  EXPOSITION. 

nouncement  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  It  is  not  a  visionary  ideal. 
It  is  vindicated  by  its  work  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  in  the 
world.  Christ's  redemptive  work  is  complete;  it  extends  concep- 
tually in  the  counsels  of  God,  and  actually  in  its  historic  manifes- 
tation, to  all  the  race.  It  saves  men  ;  all  who  consent  to  be  saved  ; 
and  it  is  adequate  to  save  all  men.  We  echo  with  our  apostle, 
"  We  are  not  ashamed  of  such  a  gospel."  And  we  unite  with  him 
in  his  last  words,  "To  the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ, 
to  him  be  the  glory  forever.     Amen." 


BS2665  .W728 

An  exposition  of  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to 

Pnncelon  Theological  Seminary  Speer  Library 


1    1012  00013  9107 


DATE  DUE 


ip,]iuniiiit 

m 

Printed 
in  USA 

HIGHSMITH  #45230 


